Discourse Structuring Markers in English

A historical constructionalist perspective on pragmatics

image of Discourse Structuring Markers in English

This book is a contribution to the growing field of diachronic construction grammar. Focus is on corpus evidence for the importance of including conventionalized pragmatics within construction grammar and suggestions for how to do so. The empirical domain is the development of Discourse Structuring Markers in English such as after all, also, all the same, by the way, further and moreover (also known as Discourse Markers). The term Discourse Structuring Markers highlights their use not only to connect discourse segments but also to shape discourse coherence and understanding. Monofunctional Discourse Structuring Markers like further, instead, moreover are distinguished from multifunctional ones like after all and by the way. Drawing on usage-based work on constructionalization and constructional changes, the book is in three parts: foundational concepts, case studies, and currently open issues in diachronic construction grammar. These open issues are how to incorporate the concepts subjectification and intersubjectification into a constructional account of change, whether position in a clause is a construction, and the nature of constructional networks and how they change.


  1. CED
    CEDA Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (2006) Compiled by M. Kytö , & J. Culpeper , in collaboration with T. Walker , & D. Archer . Uppsala University. 1.4 million words. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/CED/www.engelska.uu.se/corpus.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CEECS
    CEECSCorpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler, 1414–1680 (1998) Compiled by T. Nevalainen , H. Raumolin-Brunberg , J. Keränen , M. Nevala , A. Nurmi , & M. Palander-Collin . University of Helsinki. 450,000 words. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/domains/CEEC.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CLMET_3_0
    CLMET_3_0. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0 compiled by H. de Smet , H.-J. Diller , & J. Tyrkkö . Leuven University. c. 34 million words 1710–1920. https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_0.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. COCA
    COCAThe Corpus of Contemporary American English. 1990–2019. Compiled by M. Davies . Brigham Young University. Release March 2020, 1. billion words. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. COHA
    COHACorpus of Historical American English. 1810–2009. Compiled by M. Davies . Brigham Young University. 400 million words. (Superseded by Corpus of Historical American English. 1820s–2010s. Compiled by M. Davies. Brigham Young University. Release 2021, 475 million words. https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/.)
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DOE
    DOEDictionary of Old English A-I. diPaolo Healey, A. Eds. University of Toronto. https://www.doe.utoronto.ca/pages/index.html. 10.1484/M.IMR‑EB.4.00033
    https://doi.org/10.1484/M.IMR-EB.4.00033 [Google Scholar]
  7. DOEC
    DOECDictionary of Old English Corpus (2009) Original release 1981 compiled by A. Cameron , A. Crandell Amos , S. Butler & A. diPaolo Healey . Release 2009 compiled by A. diPaolo Healey, J.Holland, I. McDougall, & D. McDougall, with Xin Xiang. University of Toronto. c3 million running words of Old English, c1 million running words of Latin. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/DOEC/index.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. EEBO Davies, M.
    (2017) Early English Books Online. Part of the SAMUELS Project, available online athttps://www.english corpora.org/eebo/.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fisher Fisher Corpus of American Telephone Calls
    Fisher Fisher Corpus of American Telephone Calls. See C. Cieri , D. Graff , O. Kimball , D. Miller , & K. Walker (2004, 2005) Fisher English Training Speech, Part 1, Part 2. Transcripts. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HC
    HCHelsinki Corpus of English Texts. 730–1710 (1991) Compiled by M. Rissanen ( Project leader ), M. Kytö ( Project secretary ); L. Kahlas-Tarkka , M. Kilpiö ( Old English ); S. Nevanlinna , I. Taavitsainen ( Middle English ); T. Nevalainen , H. Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English). Department of English, University of Helsinki, 1.5 million words. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HGCW
    HGCWHarvard’s Geoffrey Chaucer Website. https://chaucer.fas.harvard.edu/pages/literary-works
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ICE-AUS
    ICE-AUSInternational Corpus of English – Australia (1991–1995) Compiled by P. Peters . Macquarie University, c1 million words. https://www.ausnc.org.au/corpora/ice.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ICE-GB
    ICE-GB International Corpus of English-Great Britain. Internationalice-corpora.net/ice/index.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MED
    MEDThe Middle English Dictionary (1956–2001) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. NOW corpus
    NOW corpusNews on the Web (2010-present) https://www.english-corpora.org/now/.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. OED
    OEDOxford English Dictionary (2018) Oxford University Press. www.oed.com/.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. OSS
    OSSOpenSource Shakespeare, An Experiment in Literary Technology, 2003–2005, compiled by E. M. Johnson , George Mason University, www.opensourceshakespeare.org/.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SBCSAE
    SBCSAESanta Barbara Corpus of American Spoken English, Parts 1–4 (2000–2005) Compiled by J. W. Du Bois , W. L. Chafe , C. Meyer , S. A. Thompson , R. Englebretson & N. Martey . Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Acton, E. K.
    (2019) Pragmatics and the social life of the English definite article. Language95(1), 37–65. 10.1353/lan.2019.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Aijmer, K.
    (1986) Why is actually so popular in spoken English?In G. Tottie , & I. Bäcklund (Eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium (pp.119–127). Almqvist and Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1997)  I think– an English modal particle. In T. Swan , & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp.1–47). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110889932.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.1 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2002) English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  23. Alm, M. , & Fischer, K.
    (2021) The problem of prosodic variability in the definition of constructions: The list construction. Paper presented at ICCG11, Antwerp, August.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Andersen, H.
    (2001) Actualization and the (uni)directionality. In H. Andersen (Ed.,) Actualization: Linguistic change in progress (pp.225–248). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.219.11and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.219.11and [Google Scholar]
  25. Anthonissen, L.
    (2020) Cognition in construction grammar: Connecting individual and community grammars. In P. Petré , & L. Anthonissen (Eds.), Constructionalist Approaches to Individuality in Language. Special issue, Cognitive Linguistics31(2), 185–212. 10.1515/cog‑2019‑0023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0023 [Google Scholar]
  26. Anttila, R.
    (2003) Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.425–440). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ariel, M.
    (2019)  Or constructions: Code, inference and cue too. In R. Finkbeiner (Ed.), On the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Special issue, Constructions and Frames11(2), 193–219. 10.1075/cf.00028.ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00028.ari [Google Scholar]
  28. Ariel, M. , & Mauri, C.
    (2019) An ‘alternative’ core for or . Journal of Pragmatics149, 40–59. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  29. Athanasiadou, A. , Canakis, C. , & Cornillie, B.
    (Eds.) (2006) Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892970
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892970 [Google Scholar]
  30. Auer, P.
    (1996) The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics6, 295–322. 10.1075/prag.6.3.03aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.03aue [Google Scholar]
  31. (2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25, 7–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Auer, P. & Maschler, Y.
    (eds) (2016) NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers across the Language of Europe and Beyond. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110348989
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348989 [Google Scholar]
  33. Auer, P. , & Pfänder, S.
    (2011) Constructions: Emergent or emerging?In P. Auer , & S., Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp.1–21). De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Barðdal, J. , Smirnova, E. , Sommerer, L. , & Gildea, S.
    (Eds) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  36. Beeching, K.
    (2005) Politeness-induced semantic change: The case of quand-même . Language Variation and Change17(2), 155–180. 10.1017/S0954394505050076
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394505050076 [Google Scholar]
  37. Beeching, K. , & Detges , U.
    (Eds.) (2014a) Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Brill. 10.1163/9789004274822
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822 [Google Scholar]
  38. Beeching, K. , & Detges, U.
    (2014b) Introduction. In K. Beeching , & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp.1–23). Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Beeching, K. , & Murphy, J.
    (2019) Doing (mock) im/politeness: Norms and variations in the use of politeness formulae. Special issue, Journal of Pragmatics142, 201–206. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.027
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.027 [Google Scholar]
  40. Benveniste, É.
    (1971[1958]) Subjectivity in language. In É. Benveniste , Problems in general linguistics (pp.223–230), trans. by M. E. Meek . Coral Gables: FL: University of Miami Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Bergs, A. , & Diewald, G.
    (2008) Constructions and language change. de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110211757
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211757 [Google Scholar]
  42. (Eds.) (2009a) Contexts and constructions. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2009b) Contexts and constructions. In A. Bergs , & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.1–14). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.01ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.01ber [Google Scholar]
  44. Biber, D. , & Finegan, E.
    (1988) Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes11, 1–34. 10.1080/01638538809544689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689 [Google Scholar]
  45. (1989) Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and effect. Text9(1), 93–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Biber, D. , & Gray, B.
    (2011) Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics15(2), 223-250. 10.1017/S1360674311000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000025 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2012) The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In T. Nevalainen , & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp.314–328). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0028
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0028 [Google Scholar]
  48. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Biberauer, T. , & Roberts, I.
    (2017) Parameter setting. In A. Ledgeway , & I. Roberts (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax (pp.134–162). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107279070.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.008 [Google Scholar]
  50. Birner, B. J. , & Ward, G.
    (1998) Information status and non-canonical word order in English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.40
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.40 [Google Scholar]
  51. Blakemore, D.
    (1987) Semantic constraints on Relevance. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  53. Boas, H. C.
    (2013) Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann , & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.233–252). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Boas, H. C. , & Sag, I. A.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-based construction grammar. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Bolinger, D.
    (1989) Intonation and its Uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. Edward Arnold. 10.1515/9781503623125
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503623125 [Google Scholar]
  56. Börjars, K. , Vincent, N. , & Walkden, G.
    (2015) On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society113, 363–382. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12068
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12068 [Google Scholar]
  57. Boye, K , & Harder, P.
    (2007) Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language31(3), 596–606. 10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy [Google Scholar]
  58. Boye, K. , & Harder, P.
    (2012) A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language88, 1–44. 10.1353/lan.2012.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0020 [Google Scholar]
  59. Bréal, M.
    (1964[1900]) Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning, trans. byMrs. H. Cust . Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Breban, T.
    (2006) Grammaticalization and subjectification of the English adjectives of general comparison. In A. Athanasiadou , C. Canakis , & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp.241–278). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892970.241
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892970.241 [Google Scholar]
  61. Brems, L.
    (2011) Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110252927
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252927 [Google Scholar]
  62. Brems, L. , Ghesquière, L. , & Van de Velde, F.
    (2014[2012]a) Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse. John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.65 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2014[2012]b) Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification: Typology and operationalization. In L. Brems , L. Ghesquière , & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse (pp.129–153). John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.65.07ghe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.65.07ghe [Google Scholar]
  64. Brinton, L. J.
    (1996) Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  65. Brinton, L.
    (2006) Pathways in the development of Pragmatic Markers in English. In A. van Kemenade , & B. Los (Eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp.307–334). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757048.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757048.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  66. Brinton, L. J.
    (2008) The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2017) Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of change. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316416013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316416013 [Google Scholar]
  68. Briz, A.
    , & Grupo Val.Es.Co (2003) Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial [A system of units for the study of colloquial language]. Oralia6, 7–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Bromhead, H.
    (2009) The reign of truth and faith: Epistemic expressions in 16th and 17th century English. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216028 [Google Scholar]
  70. Buchstaller, I. , & Traugott, E. C.
    (2006)  The lady was al demonyak: Historical aspects of adverb all . English Language and Linguistics10, 345–370. 10.1017/S136067430600195X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067430600195X [Google Scholar]
  71. Budts, S. , & Petré, P.
    (2020) Putting connections center stage in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer , & E. Smirnova (Eds.,) Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.317–351). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.09bud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.09bud [Google Scholar]
  72. Bybee, J.
    (2003) Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B. D. Joseph , & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.602–623). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  73. Bybee, J. L.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  74. Bybee, J. L. , & Pagliuca, W.
    (1987) The evolution of future meaning. In A. Giacalone Ramat , O. Carruba , & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp.109–122). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.48.09byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.48.09byb [Google Scholar]
  75. Bybee, J. , Perkins, R. , & Pagliuca, W.
    (1994) The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Caffi, C.
    (2013) On mitigation. In M. Sbisà , & K. Turner (Eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions (pp.258–286). Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Campbell, L.
    (Ed.) (2001) Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. Language Sciences23, Nos.2–3.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications. Special issue, Constructions . www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/constructions/files/2014/06/2006-SI-Cappelle22-80-1-PB.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  79. (2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions?In I. Depraetere , & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp.115–151). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Carston, R.
    (2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  81. Catford, J. C.
    (1965) A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Chaves, R. P.
    (2007) Coordinate structures: Constraint-based syntactic-semantic processing. Unpublished dissertation, University of Lisbon.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Chomsky N.
    (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry36(1), 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  84. Clark, E. V. , & Clark, H. H.
    (1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language55, 767–811. 10.2307/412745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412745 [Google Scholar]
  85. Comrie, B.
    1989[1981] Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Conrad, S. , & Biber, D.
    (2000) Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston , & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.56–73). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Coussé, E. , Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J.
    (Eds.) (2018a) Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2018b) Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities.In E. Coussé , P. Andersson , & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp.3–19). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c1 [Google Scholar]
  89. Croft, W.
    (2000) Explaining language change. Longman, Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  91. (2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.273–314). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.11cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.11cro [Google Scholar]
  92. Cuenca, M. J.
    (2015) Lexical connectives as grounding devices in political discourse. Paper presented at IPrA 14, Antwerp, Belgium.
  93. Cuenca, M. J. , & Bach, C.
    (2007) Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies9(2), 149–275. 10.1177/1461445607075347
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075347 [Google Scholar]
  94. Culpeper, J. , & Kytö. M.
    (2010) Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Davidse, K. , Vandelanotte, L. , & Cuyckens, H.
    (Eds.) 2010Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102 [Google Scholar]
  96. Defour, T.
    (2007) A diachronic study of the pragmatic markers well and now . Fundamental research into semantic development and grammaticalisation by means of a corpus study. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Degand, L. , & Evers-Vermeul, J.
    (2015) Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?Journal of Historical Pragmatics16(1), 59–85. 10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg [Google Scholar]
  98. Degand, L. , & Fagard, B.
    (2011)  Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language18, 29–56. 10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg [Google Scholar]
  99. Degand, L. , & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M.
    (Eds.) (2011a.) Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization and/or (inter)subjectification: Methodological issues for the study of Discourse Markers. Special issue, Linguistics49 (2).
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Degand, L. , & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M.
    (2011b) Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of Discourse Markers. In L. Degand , & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization and/or (inter)subjectification: Methodological issues for the study of Discourse Markers. Special issue, Linguistics49(2), 287–294. 10.1515/ling.2011.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.008 [Google Scholar]
  101. Dehé, N. , & Wichmann, A.
    (2010) Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language34, 36–74. 10.1075/sl.34.1.02deh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.1.02deh [Google Scholar]
  102. Deppermann, A. , & Günthner, S.
    , (Eds.) (2015) Temporality in interaction. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27 [Google Scholar]
  103. Depraetere, I. , & Salkie, R.
    (Eds.) (2017) Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6 [Google Scholar]
  104. De Smet, H.
    (2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua119, 1728–1755. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  105. (2012) The course of actualization. Language88(4), 601–633. 10.1353/lan.2012.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0056 [Google Scholar]
  106. De Smet, H. , Ghesquière, L. , & van de Velde, F.
    (Eds.) (2013) On multiple source constructions in language change. John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.79
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79 [Google Scholar]
  107. De Smet, H. , & Verstraete., J.-C.
    (2006) Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics17(3), 365–392. 10.1515/COG.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  108. Detges, U.
    (2016) Does reanalysis need ambiguity?In M. Bauer , & N. Potysch (Eds.), Ambiguity. An interdisciplinary approach. Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Detges, U. , & Waltereit, R.
    (2002) Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in language. Zeitschrift für Spachwissenschaft21, 151–195. 10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151 [Google Scholar]
  110. Diessel, H.
    (2006) Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics17(4), 463–489. 10.1515/COG.2006.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  111. (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska , & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.295–321). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015.
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  112. (2017) Usage-based linguistics. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363.
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363 [Google Scholar]
  113. (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  114. Diewald, G.
    (2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer , & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp.103–120). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  115. (2011) Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics49, 365–390. 10.1515/ling.2011.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  116. Diewald, G. , & Smirnova, E.
    (2012) Paradigmatic integration. In K. Davidse , T. Breban , L. Brems and T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, (pp.111–134). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.130.05die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130.05die [Google Scholar]
  117. Dostie, G.
    (2009) Discourse markers and regional variation in French: A lexico-semantic approach. In K. Beeching , N. Armstrong , & F. Gadet (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation in Contemporary French, (pp.201–214). John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.26.15dos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.26.15dos [Google Scholar]
  118. Drew, P. , & Heritage, J.
    (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew , & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp.3–65). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Dunn. J.
    (2017) Learnability and falsifiability of construction grammars. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America6(1). 10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4009
    https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4009 [Google Scholar]
  120. Durkin, P.
    (2014) Borrowed words: A history of loanwords in English. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574995.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574995.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  121. Eckardt, R.
    (2006) Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  122. (2009) APO: Avoid Pragmatic Overload. In M.-B. Mosegaard Hansen , & J. Visconti (Eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics (pp.21–41). Brill. 10.1163/9789004253216_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253216_003 [Google Scholar]
  123. Ehmer, O. , & Rosemeyer, M.
    (2018) Inferences in interaction and language change. In O. Ehmer , & M. Rosemeyer (Eds.), Inferences in interaction and language change, Special issue, Open Linguistics , 4(1), 1–20. 10.1515/opli‑2018‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0026 [Google Scholar]
  124. Enfield, N. J.
    (2006) Heterosemy and the grammar-lexicon trade-off. In F. K. Ameka , A. Dench , & N. Evans (Eds.), Catching language (pp.297–320). De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Erman, B. & Kotsinas, U.-B.
    (1993) Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know . Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap10, 76–93. Almqvist and Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Evans, N. , & Wilkins, N.
    (2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language76(3), 546–592. 10.2307/417135
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417135 [Google Scholar]
  127. Evers-Vermeul, J. , Degand, L. , Fagard, B. , & Mortier, L.
    (2011) Historical and comparative perspectives on subjectification: A corpus-based analysis of Dutch and French causal connectives. Linguistics49(2), 445–478. 10.1515/ling.2011.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.014 [Google Scholar]
  128. Fagard, B. , & Sarda, L.
    (2014) From local adverbials to discourse markers: Three case studies in the diachrony of French. Pragmatic Approaches to Text Structuring, halshs-01242141.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Fauconnier, G.
    (2008) Pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. In L. R. Horn , & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.657–674). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Fetzer, A.
    (2012) Context in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In R. Finkbeiner , J. Meibauer , & P. B. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges (pp.105–127). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.196.08fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.196.08fet [Google Scholar]
  131. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. In S. R. Harnad , H. D. Steklis , & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Origins and evolution of language and speech (pp.20–32). New York Academy of Sciences. 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1976.tb25467.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x [Google Scholar]
  132. Fillmore, C. J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language64, 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  133. Fillmore, C. J. , & Baker, C. F.
    (2001) Frame semantics for text understanding. Proceedings of WordNet and other lexical resources workshop (pp.59–63). NAACL.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Finkbeiner, R.
    (Ed.) (2019a) On the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Special issue, Constructions and Frames 11(2). 10.1075/cf.00027.fin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00027.fin [Google Scholar]
  135. (2019b) Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. In R. Finkbeiner (Ed.,) On the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Special issue, Constructions and Frames 11(2), 171–192. 10.1075/cf.00027.fin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00027.fin [Google Scholar]
  136. Fischer, K.
    (Ed.) (2006) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588 [Google Scholar]
  137. (2017) Cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.330–346). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.021 [Google Scholar]
  138. Fischer, O.
    (2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  139. (2011) Grammaticalization as analogically driven change?In H. Narrog , & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp.31–42). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0003 [Google Scholar]
  140. Fitzmaurice, S.
    (2010) Coalitions, networks, and discourse communities in Augustan England: The Spectator and the early eighteenth-century essay. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change (pp.106–132). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511781643.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781643.008 [Google Scholar]
  141. Flach, S.
    (2020) Constructionalization and the Sorites paradox. In L. Sommerer , & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.45–67). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.01fla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.01fla [Google Scholar]
  142. Foolen, A.
    (1996) Pragmatic particles. In J. Verschueren , J.-O. Östman , J. Blommaert , & C. Bulcan (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1996 (pp.1–24). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.2.pra3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.2.pra3 [Google Scholar]
  143. Frank-Job, B.
    (2006) A dynamic-interactional approach to Discourse Markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp.395–415). Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Fraser, B.
    (1988) Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica38, 19–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Fraser, B.
    (1996) Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics6, 167–190. 10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  146. (2006) Towards a theory of Discourse Markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.,) Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp.189–204). Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. (2009a) Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics41(5), 892–898. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  148. (2009b) An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics1, 293–320. 10.1163/187730909X12538045489818
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12538045489818 [Google Scholar]
  149. (2010) Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck , W. Mihatsch , & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging. (pp. 15–34). Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  150. (2015) The combining of Discourse Markers: A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics86, 48–53. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  151. Fraser, B. , & Traugott, E. C.
    (2017) But yet, see now this is another kind of Catch22. A study of metatextual marker sequences. Paper presented at IPrA 15, July 16–21, Belfast.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Frawley, W.
    (2013[1992]) Linguistic semantics. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315044644
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315044644 [Google Scholar]
  153. Fried, M. , & Nikiforidou, K.
    (Eds) (2015) On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Special issue, Constructions and Frames 7(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Fried, M. , & Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics37, 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  155. Geeraerts, D.
    (1997) Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. (2003) Decontextualizing and recontextualizing tendencies in 20th-century linguistics and literary theory. In E. Mengel , H.-J. Schmid , & M. Steppat (Eds.), Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth (pp.369–379). Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Geeraerts, D. , & Cuyckens, H.
    (2007) The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Ghesquière, L.
    (2010) On the subjectification and intersubjectification paths followed by the adjectives of completeness. In K. Davidse , L. Vandelanotte , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.277–313). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102.3.277
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.3.277 [Google Scholar]
  159. Givón, T.
    (2018[1979]) On understanding grammar. John Benjamins, 2nd, rev. edn. 10.1075/z.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.213 [Google Scholar]
  160. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  161. (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences7, 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  162. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  163. (2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann , & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  164. (2019) Explain me this. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Goldberg, J. A.
    (1980) Discourse particles: An analysis of the role of y’know, I mean, well and actually in conversations. Unpublished dissertation, Cambridge University.
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Goldstein, D.
    (2014) Wackernagel’s Law I. In G. Giannakis . (Eds). Encyclopedia of ancient Greek language and linguistics (pp.508–513). Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Gras, P. , & Elvira-García, W.
    (2021) The role of intonation in Construction Grammar: On prosodic constructions. Journal of Pragmatics180, 234–247. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  168. Greenbaum, S.
    (1969) Studies in English adverbial usage. Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Gregory, M. L. , & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2001) Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics33, 1665–1706. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00063‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00063-1 [Google Scholar]
  170. Grice, H. P.
    (1989[1967]) Logic and conversation. In H. P. Grice , Studies in the way of words (pp.22–40). Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Gries, S. Th. , & Hilpert, M.
    (2012) Variability-based neighbor clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In T. Nevalainen , & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp.134–144). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0014 [Google Scholar]
  172. Grondelaers, S. , & Geeraerts, D.
    (2003) Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In H. Cuyckens , R. Dirven , & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.67–92). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219074.67
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.67 [Google Scholar]
  173. Grondelaers, S. , Speelman, D. , & Geeraerts, D.
    (2007) Lexical variation and change. In D. Geeraerts , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.988–1011). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Gyselinck, E.
    (2020) (Re)shaping the constructional network: Modeling shifts and reorganizations in the network hierarchy. In L. Sommerer , & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.107–140). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.03gys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.03gys [Google Scholar]
  175. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Hancil, S.
    (2016) Final but, theticality and subjectification. Anglophonia22. 10.4000/anglophonia.1043
    https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.1043 [Google Scholar]
  177. Hancil, S. , Haselow. A. , & Post, M.
    (Eds.) (2015) Final particles. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110375572
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110375572 [Google Scholar]
  178. Hansen, M.-B. M.
    (1998) The function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to Spoken Standard French. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.53 [Google Scholar]
  179. (2008) Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface: Synchronic and diachronic issues: A Study with special reference to the French phasal adverbs. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  180. (2012) The semantics of pragmatic expressions. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp.589–613). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214215.587
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.587 [Google Scholar]
  181. Hansen, M.-B. M. , & Visconti, J.
    (2009) Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics. In M.-B. M. Hansen , & J. Visconti (Eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics (pp.1–19.) Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  182. Hansen, M.-B. M. , & Waltereit, R.
    (2006) GCI theory and language change. Acta lingvistica hafniensia38, 235–268. 10.1080/03740463.2006.10412210
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2006.10412210 [Google Scholar]
  183. Harder, P.
    (2012) Emergent and usage-based models of grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp.507–532). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215.507
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.507 [Google Scholar]
  184. Harris, A. , & Campbell, L.
    (1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  185. Haselow, A.
    (2012) Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In I. Hegedüs , & A. Fodor (Eds.), English historical linguistics 2010. selected papers from the sixteenth international conference on English historical linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 23–27 August2010, (pp. 153–175). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.325.07has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.325.07has [Google Scholar]
  186. Haselow, A.
    (2013) Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica47,375–424. 10.1515/flin.2013.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.015 [Google Scholar]
  187. (2015) Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway . In A. D. M. Smith , G. Trousdale , & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New Directions in Grammaticalization Research, 157–186. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.166.08has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.166.08has [Google Scholar]
  188. (2016) A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences54, 77–101. 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  189. (2019) Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics146, 1–18. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  190. Haspelmath, M.
    (1998) Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?Studies in Language22, 315–351. 10.1075/sl.22.2.03has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22.2.03has [Google Scholar]
  191. (1999) Why is grammaticalization irrecersible?Linguistics37, 1043-1068. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [Google Scholar]
  192. (2004) On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer , M. Norde , & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and Down the Cline-The Nature of Grammaticalization (pp.17–44). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.59.03has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.59.03has [Google Scholar]
  193. Hasselgård, H.
    (2010) Adjunct adverbials in English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511676253
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676253 [Google Scholar]
  194. Hata, K.
    (2016) On the importance of the multimodal approach to discourse markers: A pragmatic view. International Review of Pragmatics8(1), 36–54. 10.1163/18773109‑00801002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00801002 [Google Scholar]
  195. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1983) Word order universals. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  196. (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  197. Heine, B.
    (2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer , & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp.83–101). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  198. (2013) On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?Linguistics51(6), 1205–1247. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0048
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0048 [Google Scholar]
  199. (2019) Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica52(2), 411–442. 10.1515/flin‑2019‑2016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2019-2016 [Google Scholar]
  200. Heine, B. , Claudi, U. , & Hünnemeyer, F.
    (1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  201. Heine, B. , Kaltenböck, G. , Kuteva, T. , & Long, H.
    (2017) Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics55(4), 813–855. 10.1515/ling‑2017‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0012 [Google Scholar]
  202. (In press). The rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  203. Heine, B. , & Miyashita, H.
    (2008) Accounting for a functional category: German drohen ‘to threaten’. Language Sciences30, 53–101. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  204. Heine, B. , & Reh, M.
    (1984) Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African Languages. Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  205. Heritage, J.
    (1994) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson , & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp.299–345). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  206. Heritage, J.
    (2002)  Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford , B. Fox , & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp.196–224). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  207. Hernández-Campoy, J. M. , & Conde-Silvestre, J. C.
    (Eds.) (2012) The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118257227
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118257227 [Google Scholar]
  208. Hilpert, M.
    (2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  209. (2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  210. (2018) Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé , J. Olofsson , & P. Andersson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar, 22–39. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 [Google Scholar]
  211. Himmelmann, N. P.
    (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?In W. Bisang , N. P. Himmelmann , & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization – A look from its fringes and its components (pp.21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  212. Hoffmann, S.
    (2004) Using the OED quotations database as a corpus – a linguistic appraisal. ICAME28(4), 17–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  213. Hoffmann, T.
    (2020) What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar? Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics34, 149–161. 10.1075/bjl.00042.hof
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00042.hof [Google Scholar]
  214. Hoffmann, T. , & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  215. Hopper, P. J.
    (1987) Emergent grammar. In J. Aske , N. Berry , L. Michaelis , & H. Filip (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: General session and parasession on grammar and cognition (pp.139–157). Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  216. (1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott , & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1, 17–35. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  217. (2008) Emergent serialization in English: Pragmatics and typology. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change (pp.252–284). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  218. (2011) Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer , & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.22–44). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110229080.22
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  219. Hopper, P. J. , & Traugott, E. C.
    (2003[1993]) Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, 2nd, rev. edn. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  220. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  221. Huddleston, R. , Payne, J. , & Peterson, P.
    (2002) Coordination and supplementation. In R. Huddleston , & G. K. Pullum , The Cambridge grammar of the English language, Chapter 15. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.016 [Google Scholar]
  222. Hudson, R.
    (2007) Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  223. Hudson, R.
    (2010) An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511781964
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781964 [Google Scholar]
  224. (2015) Word Grammar. In B. Heine , & H. Narrog , The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 2nd edn. Published online. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0033.
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0033 [Google Scholar]
  225. Hüning, M. , Booij, G.
    (2014) From compounding to derivation: The rise of derivational affixes through constructionalization. In F. von Mengden , & H. Simon (Eds.), Refining grammaticalization. Special issue, Folia Linguistica 48(2), 579–604. 10.1515/flin.2014.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.019 [Google Scholar]
  226. Ingham, R.
    (2015) Spoken and written register differentiation in pragmatic and semantic functions in two Anglo-Norman corpora. In J. Gippert , & R. Gehrke (Eds.), Historical corpora: Challenges and perspectives (pp.269–280). Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  227. Jakobson, R.
    (1956) Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbance. In R. Jakobson , & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language (pp.53–87). Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  228. Jaszczcolt, K. M.
    (2019) Rethinking being Gricean: New challenges for metapragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics145: 15–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.024 [Google Scholar]
  229. Jiménez, S. S. , Estellés Arguedas, M. , & Pons Bordería, S.
    (2018) Beyond the notion of periphery: An account of polyfunctional discourse markers within the Val.Es.Co model of discourse. In K. Beeching , C. Ghezzi , & P. Molinelli (Eds.), Positioning the self and others: Linguistic perspectives (pp.105–125). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.292.05sal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.292.05sal [Google Scholar]
  230. Joseph, B. D.
    (1997) On the linguistics of marginality: The centrality of the periphery. Chicago Linguistic Society33, 197–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  231. Joseph, B. D. , & Janda, R. D.
    (2003) On language, change, and language change – or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In B. D. Joseph , & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.3–180). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  232. Kaltenböck, G. , & Heine, B.
    (2014) Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: Two competing domains. In B. MacWhinney , A. Malchukov , & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp.348–363). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0021 [Google Scholar]
  233. Kaltenböck, G. , Heine, B. , & Kuteva, T.
    (2011) On thetical grammar. Studies in Language35(4), 852–897. 10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal [Google Scholar]
  234. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y construction. Language75, 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  235. Kemenade, A. van
    . (2012) Rethinking the loss of verb second. In T. Nevalainen , & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp.822–834). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0067
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0067 [Google Scholar]
  236. Kemenade, A. van
    (2021) Syntactic change and pragmatic maintenance: The discourse particle then over the history of English. Paper presented at the 22nd Diachronic Syntax Conference, Konstanz, May 24th.
    [Google Scholar]
  237. Kemenade, A. van , & Links, M.
    (2020) Discourse particles in early English: Clause structure, pragmatics and discourse management. Glossa a Journal of General Linguistics5(1). 10.5334/gjgl.1020
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1020 [Google Scholar]
  238. Kemmer, S. , & Barlow, M.
    (1999) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow , & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.vii–xxviii). CSLI publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  239. Kempson, R.
    (1975) Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  240. Kim, J.-B. , & Davies, M.
    (2020) English what with absolute constructions: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics24(4), 637–666. 10.1017/S1360674319000169
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674319000169 [Google Scholar]
  241. Kim, J.-B. , & Sag, I. A.
    (2005) English object extraposition: A constraint-based approach. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference (pp.192–212). CSLI Publications. 10.21248/hpsg.2005.11
    https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2005.11 [Google Scholar]
  242. Kiparsky, P.
    (1968) Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In E. Bach , & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.171–202). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  243. (2012) Grammaticalization as optimization. In D. Jonas , J. Whitman , & A. Garrett (Eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes (pp.15–51). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  244. König, E.
    (1985) Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessive connectives. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical semantics and historical word formation (pp.263–282). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110850178.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850178.263 [Google Scholar]
  245. (2020) Beyond exophoric and endophoric uses: Additional discourse-functions of demonstratives. In Å. Ness , A. Margetts , & Y. Treis (Eds.), Demonstratives in Discourse (pp.21–42). Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  246. Koops, C. , & Lohmann, A.
    (2015) A quantitative approach to the grammaticalization of discourse markers: Evidence from their sequencing behavior. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics20, 232–259. 10.1075/ijcl.20.2.04koo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.04koo [Google Scholar]
  247. Kroon, C.
    (1995) Discourse particles in Latin: A study of NAM, ENIM, AUTEM, VERO and AT. J.C. Gieben. 10.1163/9789004408999
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004408999 [Google Scholar]
  248. Kuo, Y. H.
    (2020) Late-stage grammatical change in Chinese: A constructional account. PhD thesis, Edinburgh University.
  249. Kuteva, T.
    (2001) Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  250. Kuteva, T. , Heine , B , Hong, B. , Long, H. , Narrog, H. , & Rhee, S.
    (2019) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn. 10.1017/9781316479704
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316479704 [Google Scholar]
  251. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (2003[1980]) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press, 2nd edn. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  252. Lakoff, R.
    (1971) If’s, and’s, and but’s about conjunction. In C. J. Fillmore , & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp.115–150). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  253. Langacker, R. W.
    (1977) Syntactic reanalysis. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp.57–139). University of Texas Press. 10.7560/750357‑005
    https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-005 [Google Scholar]
  254. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  255. (1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.127–161). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  256. (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics1, 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  257. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  258. (1999) Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency. In A. Blank , & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp.47–175). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  259. (2006) Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou , C. Canakis , & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp.17–40). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892970.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892970.17 [Google Scholar]
  260. Lass, R.
    (2000) Language periodization and the concept “Middle”. In I. Taavitsainen , T. Nevalainen , P. Pahta , & M. Rissanen (Eds.), Placing Middle English in context (pp.7–42). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110869514.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869514.7 [Google Scholar]
  261. Lehmann, C.
    (2015[1995]) Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Language Science Press, 3rd rev. edn. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  262. Lenk, U.
    (1998) Marking discourse coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  263. Lenker, U.
    (2010) Argument and rhetoric. Adverbial connectors in the history of English. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110216066
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216066 [Google Scholar]
  264. (2014) Knitting and splitting information: Medial placement of linking adverbials in the history of English. In S. E. Pfenninger , O. Timofeeva , A.-C. Gardner , A. Honkapohja , M. Hundt , & D. Schreier (Eds.), Contact, variation and change in the history of English (pp.11–38). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.159.02len
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.159.02len [Google Scholar]
  265. Levinson, S. C.
    (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Bradford. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  266. (2003) Contextualizing “contextualization cues”. In S. L. Eerdmans , C. L. Prevignano , & P. J. Thibault (Eds.), Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz (pp.31–39). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.117.04lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.04lev [Google Scholar]
  267. Lewis, D. M.
    (2000) Some emergent discourse connectives in English: Grammaticalization via rhetorical patterns. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  268. (2007) From temporal to contrastive and causal: The emergence of connective after all . In A. Celle , & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks (pp.88–99). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.161.09lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.161.09lew [Google Scholar]
  269. (2011) A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. In L. Degand , & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization and/or (inter)subjectification: Methodological issues for the study of Discourse Markers. Special issue, Linguistics49(2), 415–443. 10.1515/ling.2011.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.013 [Google Scholar]
  270. Lightfoot, D.
    (1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  271. (1991) How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  272. Lohmann, A. , & Koops, C.
    (2016) Aspects of discourse marker sequencing – Empirical challenges and theoretical implications. In G. Kaltenböck , E. Keizer , & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents (pp.417–446). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.14loh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.14loh [Google Scholar]
  273. López-Couso, M. J.
    (2010) Subjectification and intersubjectification. In A. H. Jucker , & I. Taavitsainen , (Eds.), Historical pragmatics (pp.127–163). de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214284.3.127
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214284.3.127 [Google Scholar]
  274. Los, B. , & Kemenade, A. van
    . (2012) Information structure and syntax in the history of English. In A. Bergs , & L. J. Brinton (Eds.), English historical linguistics: An international handbook, Vol.2, 1475–1490. De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  275. Lutzky, U.
    (2012) Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.227
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.227 [Google Scholar]
  276. Lyngfelt, B.
    (2018) Introduction: Constructicons and constructicography. In B. Lyngfelt , L. Borin , K. Ohara , & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages (pp.1–18). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.01lyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.01lyn [Google Scholar]
  277. Lyons, J.
    (1982) Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp.101–124). Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  278. MacWhinney, B. , & O’Grady, W.
    (Eds.) (2015) The handbook of language emergence. Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118346136
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346136 [Google Scholar]
  279. Mair, C.
    (1997) Parallel corpora: A real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. In M. Ljung (Ed.), Corpus-based studies in English (pp.95–209). Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  280. Mauri, C. , & Auwera, J. van der
    . (2012) Connectives. In K. Allan , & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp.377–401). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.021 [Google Scholar]
  281. Meillet, A.
    (1958[1912]) L’évolution des formes grammaticales [The evolution of grammatical forms]. In A. Meillet , Linguistique historique et linguistique générale [Historical linguistics and general linguistics] (pp.130–148). Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  282. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2013) Sign-Based construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann , & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.133–152). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  283. Milroy J. , & Milroy, L.
    (1985) Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics21(2), 339–383. 10.1017/S0022226700010306
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010306 [Google Scholar]
  284. Misković-Luković, M. , & Dediać, M. N.
    (2012) The discourse marker odnoso at the ICTY: A case of disputed translation in war crimes trials. Journal of Pragmatics44, 1355–1377. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  285. Mittwoch, A. , Huddleston, R. , & Collins, P.
    (2002) The clause adjuncts. In R. Huddleston , & G. K. Pullum , The Cambridge grammar of the English language, Chapter 8. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.009 [Google Scholar]
  286. Mulder, J. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (2008) The grammaticalization of but as a final particle in conversation. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp.179–204). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.09mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.09mul [Google Scholar]
  287. Mulder, J. , Thompson, S. A. , & Williams, C. P.
    (2009) Final but in Australian English conversation. In P. Peters , P. Collins , & A. Smith (Eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond (pp.337–358). John Benjamins. 10.1075/veaw.g39.19mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g39.19mul [Google Scholar]
  288. Murray, D.
    (1979) ‘Well’. Linguistic Inquiry10(4), 727–734.
    [Google Scholar]
  289. Narrog, H.
    (2014[2012]) Beyond intersubjectification: Textual uses of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech-act orientation . In L. Brems , L. Ghesquière , & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse (pp.29–52). John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.65.03nar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.65.03nar [Google Scholar]
  290. Nesselhauf, N.
    (2010) The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of forms or change in discourse?English Language and Linguistics14(2), 163–186. 10.1017/S1360674310000043
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000043 [Google Scholar]
  291. Nevalainen, T.
    (1990) Modeling functional differentiation and function loss: The case of “but”. In S. Adamson , V. Law , N. Vincent , & S. Wright (Eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (pp.337–355). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.65.20nev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.65.20nev [Google Scholar]
  292. Nevalainen, T.
    (1991) BUT, ONLY, JUST: Focusing on adverbial change in Modern English1500–1900. Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  293. Nicolle, S.
    (2011) Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In H. Narrog , & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp.401–412). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0032
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0032 [Google Scholar]
  294. Noël, D.
    (2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language14, 177–202. 10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe [Google Scholar]
  295. (2017) The development of non-deontic BE BOUND TO in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua199, 72–93. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.012.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.012 [Google Scholar]
  296. Norde, M.
    (2009) Degrammaticalization. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  297. Oates, S. L.
    (2000) Multiple discourse marker occurrence: Creating hierarchies for natural language generation. Proceedings of ANLP-NAACL (pp.41–45).
    [Google Scholar]
  298. Onodera, N. O.
    (2004) Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.132
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.132 [Google Scholar]
  299. Östman, J.-O.
    (1981) You know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.ii.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  300. Parkes, M. B.
    (1992) Pause and effect: An introduction to the history of punctuation in the West. University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  301. Percillier, M.
    (2020) Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. In L. Sommerer , & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.213–242). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.06per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per [Google Scholar]
  302. Perek, F.
    (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics23(3), 601–635. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  303. (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  304. (2020) Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In L. Sommerer , & E. Smirnova , (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.141–166). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.04per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.04per [Google Scholar]
  305. Perek, F. , & Patten, A. L.
    (2019) Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. In S. Hunston & F. Perek (Eds.), Constructions in Applied Linguistics. Special issue, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics . 24(3), 354-384. 10.1075/ijcl.00016.per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00016.per [Google Scholar]
  306. Petré, P.
    (2016) Grammaticalization by changing co-text frequencies, or why [BE Ving] became the ‘progressive’. English Language and Linguistics20(1), 31–54. 10.1017/S1360674315000210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000210 [Google Scholar]
  307. (2019) How constructions are born. The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF . In B. Busse , & R. Möhlig-Falke (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics: New perspectives on a ubiquitous concept (pp.157–192). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110596656‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596656-007 [Google Scholar]
  308. Petré, P. , & Anthonissen, L.
    (2020) Individuality in complex systems: A constructionalist approach. In P. Petré , & L. Anthonissen (Eds.), Constructionalist approaches to individuality in language. Special issue, Cognitive Linguistics 31(2), 185–212. 10.1515/cog‑2019‑0033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0033 [Google Scholar]
  309. Petré, P. , & Van de Velde, F.
    (2018) The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language94(4), 867–901. 10.1353/lan.2018.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0056 [Google Scholar]
  310. Petruck, M. R.
    (2011) Advances in frame semantics. Constructions and Frames3(1), 1–8. 10.1075/cf.3.1.00pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.3.1.00pet [Google Scholar]
  311. Pons Bordería, S.
    (2008) Do discourse markers exist? On the treatment of discourse markers in Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics40, 1411–1434. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  312. Pons Bordería, S. , & Estellés Arguedas, M.
    (2009) Expressing digression linguistically: Do digressive markers exist?Journal of Pragmatics41, 921–936. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.011 [Google Scholar]
  313. Pratt, L. , & Denison, D.
    (2000) The language of the Southey-Coleridge circle. Language Sciences22, 401–422. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00013‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00013-9 [Google Scholar]
  314. Prévost, S.
    (2011)  A propos from verbal complement to discourse marker: A case of grammaticalization?Linguistics49(2), 391–413. 10.1515/ling.2011.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.012 [Google Scholar]
  315. Pullum, G. , & Huddleston, R.
    (2002) Adjectives and adverbs. In R. Huddleston , & G. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.526–595). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.007 [Google Scholar]
  316. Pulvermüller, F.
    (2002) The neuroscience of language: On brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  317. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  318. Ramat, P. , & Ricca, D.
    (1994) Prototypical adverbs: On the scalarity/radiality of the notion ADVERB. Rivista di Linguistica6, 289–326.
    [Google Scholar]
  319. Recanati, F.
    (2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  320. Rissanen, M.
    (2004) Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside(s) . In H. Lindquist , & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp.151–170). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.13.08ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.13.08ris [Google Scholar]
  321. Rosén, H.
    (2009) Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification – the contribution of particles. In P. Baldi , & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax: Vol. 1. Syntax of the sentence (pp.317–441). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  322. Rostila, J.
    (2004) Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. In F. Karlsson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. www.ling.helsinki.fi/kielitiede/20scl/Rostila.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  323. Rouchota, Villy
    . (1998) Procedural meaning and parenthetical Discourse Markers. In A. H. Jucker , & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and theory (pp.97–126). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57.07rou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.07rou [Google Scholar]
  324. Rumelhart, D. E. , & McClelland, J. L.
    (Eds.) (1986) Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructures of cognition, 2Vols. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5236.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5236.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  325. Sankoff, G.
    (2019) Language change across the life-span: Three trajectory types. Language95(2), 197–229. 10.1353/lan.2019.0029
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0029 [Google Scholar]
  326. Sarda, L. , Carter-Thomas, S. , Fagard, B. , & Charolles, M.
    (Eds.) (2014) Adverbials in use: From predicative to discourse functions. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  327. Saussure, F. de
    . (1983[1916]) Course in general linguistics. Trans. by R. Harris . Open Court.
    [Google Scholar]
  328. Schegloff, E. A. , & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica4, 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  329. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  330. Schmid, H.-J.
    (Ed.) (2012) Cognitive pragmatics. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215 [Google Scholar]
  331. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2016) Why Cognitive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics27(4), 543–557. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0048
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0048 [Google Scholar]
  332. (2017) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.9–35). De Gruyter Mouton and American Psychological Association. 10.1037/15969‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002 [Google Scholar]
  333. (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  334. Schmid, H.-J. , & Mantlik, A.
    (2015) Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profile. Anglia133(4), 583–623. 10.1515/ang‑2015‑0056
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2015-0056 [Google Scholar]
  335. Schönefeld, D.
    (2011) Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research. John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.33
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.33 [Google Scholar]
  336. Schourup, L.
    (2016[1985]) Common discourse particles in English conversation. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315401584
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315401584 [Google Scholar]
  337. Schwenter, S. A. , & Traugott, E. C.
    (1995) The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In A. H. Jucker (Ed.), Historical pragmatics (pp.243–273). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.35.16sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.35.16sch [Google Scholar]
  338. Schwenter, S. A. , & Waltereit, R.
    (2010) Presupposition accommodation and language change: From additivity to speech-act marking. In K. Davidse , L. Vandelanotte , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.75–102). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102.2.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.2.75 [Google Scholar]
  339. Shinzato, R.
    (2014) Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and Japanese grammar. In K. Kabata , & T. Ono (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to Japanese grammar: Towards the understanding of human language (pp.85–108). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.156.08shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.156.08shi [Google Scholar]
  340. Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. , & Willems, D.
    (2011) Cross-linguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. In L. Degand , & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization and/or (inter)subjectification: methodological issues for the study of discourse markers. Special issue, Linguistics 49(2), 333–364.
    [Google Scholar]
  341. Smirnova, E.
    (2015) Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In J. Barðdal , E. Smirnova , L. Sommerer , & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.81–106). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.03smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.03smi [Google Scholar]
  342. Smirnova, E. , & Sommerer, L.
    (2020) The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer , & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.1–42). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int [Google Scholar]
  343. Sommerer, L.
    (2018) Article emergence in Old English: A constructionalist perspective. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110541052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110541052 [Google Scholar]
  344. Sommerer, L. , & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  345. Sorva, E.
    (2007) Grammaticalization and syntactic polyfunctionality: The case of albeit . In U. Lenker , & A. Meurman-Solin (Eds.), Connectives in the history of English (pp.115–143). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.283.08sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.283.08sor [Google Scholar]
  346. Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D.
    (1995[1986]) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell, 2nd, rev. edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  347. Swan, T.
    (1994) A note on Old English and Old Norse initial adverbials and word order with special reference to sentence adverbials. In T. Swan , E. Mørck , & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Language change and language structure (pp.233–270). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110886573.233
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886573.233 [Google Scholar]
  348. Sweetser, E. E.
    (1988) Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In S. Axmaker , A. Jaisser , & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistics society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization (pp.389–405). Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774 [Google Scholar]
  349. (1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  350. Talmy, L.
    (1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp.57–149). Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  351. (2000) Toward a cognitive linguistics, Vol. I. Concept structuring systems. The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  352. Terkourafi, M.
    (2009) On de-limiting context. In A. Bergs , & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.17–42). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.02ter
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.02ter [Google Scholar]
  353. Thompson, S. A. , & Mulac, A. J.
    (1991) A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott , & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 2, 213–329. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  354. Timberlake, A.
    (1977) Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp.141–177). University of Texas Press. 10.7560/750357‑006
    https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-006 [Google Scholar]
  355. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  356. Torrent, T. T.
    (2015) On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional Convergence and Construction Network Reconfiguration hypotheses. In J. Barðdal , E. Smirnova , L. Sommerer , & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.173–211). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.06tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.06tor [Google Scholar]
  357. Tottie, G.
    (2014) On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language21(1), 6–29. 10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot [Google Scholar]
  358. Traugott, E. C.
    (1982) From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann , & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics (pp.245–271). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.24.09clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.09clo [Google Scholar]
  359. Traugott, E. C.
    (1997[1995]) The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester, 1995. www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf
  360. (1999) The role of pragmatics in a theory of semantic change. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. 2, 93–102. International Pragmatics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  361. (2003) From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp.124–139). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  362. (2004) Historical pragmatics. In L. R. Horn , & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp.538–561). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  363. (2010) (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse , L. Vandelanotte , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.29–71). de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  364. (2014) On the function of the epistemic adverbs surely and no doubt at the left and right peripheries of the clause. In K. Beeching , & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp.72–91). Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  365. (2018a) Modeling language change with constructional networks. In S. Pons Bordería , & Ó. Loureda Lemos (Eds.), Beyond grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New issues in the study of language change (pp.17–50). Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  366. (2018b) Rethinking the role of invited inferencing in change from the perspective of interactional texts. In O. Ehmer , & M. Rosemeyer (Eds.), Inferences in interaction and language change. Special issue, Open Linguistics4(1), 19–34. https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opli.2018.4.issue-1/issue-files/opli.2018.4.issue-1.xml. 10.1515/opli‑2018‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0002 [Google Scholar]
  367. (2020a) The development of “digressive” discourse–topic shift markers in English. In B. Fagard , & M. Charolles (Eds.), Topic shifters in contrastive perspective. Special issue, Journal of Pragmatics 156, 121–135. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  368. (2020b) Expressions of stance-to-text: Discourse management markers as stance markers. In G. Kaltenböck , M. J. López-Couso , & B. Méndez-Naya (Eds.), Investigating stance in English: Synchrony and diachrony. Special issue, Language Sciences 82. Online at10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101329.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101329 [Google Scholar]
  369. (2020c) Is back to my point a pragmatic marker? An inquiry into the historical development of some metatextual discourse management markers. In J. Martines , S. Rodríguez , & J. Antolí (Eds.), Context and linguistic change. Special issue, Catalan Journal of Linguistics , 13–29. 10.5565/rev/catjl.307
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.307 [Google Scholar]
  370. In press. Ten lectures on a diachronic constructionalist approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. Brill. Special issue, 10.1163/9789004507050
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004507050 [Google Scholar]
  371. Traugott, E. C. , & Dasher, R. B.
    (2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  372. Traugott, E. C. , & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  373. Traugott, E.C. , & Heine, B.
    (Eds) 1991Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2Vols. John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  374. Trousdale, G. , & Traugott, E. C.
    (2021) Rethinking constructionalization: The history of by the way . Paper presented at ISLE6, Joensuu, June.
    [Google Scholar]
  375. van Bogaert, J.
    (2011)  I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics49(2), 295–332. 10.1515/ling.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  376. Vandelanotte, L.
    (2009) Speech and thought representation in English: A cognitive-functional approach. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 [Google Scholar]
  377. van der Auwera, J.
    (2009) The Jespersen cycles. In E. van Gelderen (Ed.), Cyclical Change (pp.35–71). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.146.05auw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.146.05auw [Google Scholar]
  378. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart , T. Colleman , & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 141–180. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110366273.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
  379. Verhagen, A.
    (1995) Subjectification, syntax, and communication. In D. Stein , & S. Wright , (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation in language (pp.103–28). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.006 [Google Scholar]
  380. (2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  381. (2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.48–81). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  382. Vincent, N.
    (2015) Compositionality and change. In C. Bowern , & B. Evans (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  383. Waltereit, R.
    (2006) The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp.61–76). Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  384. (2012) On the origins of grammaticalization and other types of language change in discourse strategies. In K. Davidse , T. Breban , L. Brems , & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections (pp.51–72). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.130.03wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130.03wal [Google Scholar]
  385. Weinreich, U. , Labov, W. , & Herzog, M.
    [2017(1968)] Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann , & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp.95–189). University of Texas Press, repr.
    [Google Scholar]
  386. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2006) English: Meaning and culture. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  387. Wilcox, S. , & Occhino, C.
    (2016) Historical change in signed languages. Oxford Handbooks Online. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.24
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.24 [Google Scholar]
  388. Wilcox, S. , & Martinez, R.
    (2020) The conceptualization of space: Places in signed discourse. Frontiers in Psychology11: 1406. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01406
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01406 [Google Scholar]
  389. Winograd, T.
    (1976) Towards a procedural understanding of semantics. Revue Internationale de Philosophie30, 260–303.
    [Google Scholar]
  390. Wolk, C. , Bresnan, J. , Rosenbach, A. , & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2013) Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica30, 382–419. 10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol [Google Scholar]
  391. Zehentner, E.
    (2019) Competition and language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110633856
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633856 [Google Scholar]
  392. Zehentner, E. , & Traugott, E. C.
    (2020) Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In L. Sommerer , & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.168–211). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.05zeh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.05zeh [Google Scholar]
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error