I must wait on myself must I On

I must wait on myself, must I? On the rise of pragmatic markers at right periphery of the clause in English Elizabeth Closs Traugott traugott@stanford. edu Lund University, Sept. 4 th 2013

What is periphery? • Periphery often associated with core clause/proposition/argument structure, especially topic, focus, left-dislocation, right-dislocation (cf. the cartography project, Cinque & Rizzi 2008): (1) a. That guy over there we like. b. That gal over there, she’s smart. c. She’s smart, that gal over there. d. It’s smart she is, that gal over there. 2

• But I am concerned with pragmatic markers (PMs) “outside” the dependency structure of the core clause, especially those at right periphery (RP), when and how they came into being: (2) a. She’s smart, no doubt. (epistemic) b. She’s smart, I guess. (comment clause) c. She’s smart, isn’t she? (question tag) d. She’s smart or something. (general extender) e. She’s smart then. (retrospective contrastive) • RP is not necessarily “right edge”; address forms typically occur there, cf. f. She’s smart, isn’t she, John? 3

Road map • Why investigate right periphery? • Outline of incremental development of pragmatic marker (PM) classes in English occurring at RP • Relevant systemic changes • Issues: - development of PMs as procedural constructionalization - challenges to generalizations about PMs • Envoi 4

Why investigate Right Periphery? • PMs structure discourse, often evaluatively. Essential component of interaction and rhetorical practices. • Focus has been on PMs at left periphery (LP); PMs at RP largely ignored, perhaps because infrequent. • Much that has been said about English PMs is challenged by PMs at RP, e. g. Claim A. Allegedly defining features of PMs include (see Schiffrin 1987, Brinton 2008, Kaltenböck, Heine, & Kuteva 2011): - PMs do not form an immediate constituent of the core clause - PMs are disjunct - PMs have no impact on the truth value of the utterance 5

Claim B. There is a division of labor between markers at LP and at RP. • e. g. Beeching and Detges ( Forthc) explores the hypothesis that: - LP is linked to subjectivity - RP is linked to intersubjectivity - Therefore elements recruited to LP undergo Subjectification, those recruited to RP undergo Inter. Subjectification. 6

Claim C. Most PMs appear at left periphery (LP) in English. • e. g. Discourse markers (PMs) are “commonly used in initial position of an utterance” (Schiffrin 1987: 328). • Auer (1996: 297): LP “is a preferred locus for processes of grammaticalization; by this I mean … processes by which adverbials turn into discourse markers”. • Onodera (2011: 620): “I propose that the initialness of discourse markers is universal”. 7

• BUT appearance at LP not universal: • “ English discourse markers typically occur at the beginning of an utterance, German and Dutch modal particles are positioned in the middle field, in classical Greek the particles were attracted by the second position, whereas East Asian languages typically have their pragmatic particles at the end of the utterance”. (Van der Wouden & Foolen 2011) • Note also some PMs cannot occur at LP: - question tags (must I? ) - general extenders (and stuff) so generalizations from LP do not necessarily apply at RP and Claim C is counterevidenced. Claims A and B are also challenged by PMs at RP. 8

Development of PM classes at RP • Development of classes of PMs available at RP is incremental, though individual members have changed: “Despite the changes in discourse forms over time or their loss, there would nonetheless seem to be a continuity of pragmatic functions over time, with the forms expressing discourse functions … continually being replaced”. (Brinton 2001: 151, italics original) • Continuity once the category has come into being. 9

Old English • Most PMs at LP (Hwæt ‘lo!, listen up!’, gelamp ‘it happened’, Brinton 1996). • Many Epistemic Adverbs at LP, e. g. witodlice ‘truly’ (Swan 1988), but some occasionally at RP where they serve to comment on the speaker’s commitment to the truth of or belief in the proposition denoted in the core clause. • It is not possible to assess to what extent Epistemic Adverbs at RP are syntactically and prosodically integrated in the core clause. 10

(3) a. Ða gegrap Zosimus swiðlic ege and fyrhtu then seized Zosimus great fear and terror witodlice. truly (LS Mary of Egypt B 3. 3. 23 [DOEC]) b. & ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys and not lead thou us in temptation but release us of yfele soþlice. us from evil truly (Mt (WSCp) B 8. 4. 3. 1 [DOEC]) 11

• Interjection la ‘lo, behold!’ was favored at LP, either alone or with a PM, cf. hwæt la, ! hu la! ‘how now!’, la hu! (Hiltunen 2006). But could occur clause-finally: (4) Geþenc þu nu be ðe selfum, la, Boetius, hwæðer … think thou now about you self LA, Boethius, whether … (Bo B 9. 3. 9 [DOEC]) • In sum, in OE main RPPMs are Epistemic Adverbs (rarely attested): • Other categories appearing clause-finally: Interjections Address terms 12

Middle English • Period of expansion, perhaps because of contact (with Scandinavian, French) and development of new genres, especially drama. • New at RP are Comment Clauses (Brinton 2008): (5) Vxor: We bowrdre al wrange, I wene… we jest all idly I think… Filius: My modir comes to you this daye. my mother comes to you this day Noe: Scho is welcome, I wele warrande. she is welcome I well affirm (1463 -77 The Flood [YP, p. 82. 66]) 13

• Also General Extenders • Pichler & Levey (2010: 20) hypothesize development in (6): (6) Stage 0: final, indefinite, member of a set Stage 1: textual marker of a set, implicating a larger category; backward-looking and topic closing Stage 2: interpersonal, backward-looking hedge; turn-yielding. • Stage 0 attested in OE (Carroll 2008). • Stage 1 attested in ME. 14

• Clearest exs with etc. , and so forth, as no ellipsis: (7) Bi resun of the goldfoyl, ant so vorth by reason of the gold-foil, and so forth, as I seyde er as I said earlier (1325 Recipe Painting [MED and 1 c. (b)]) • Others often ambiguous with elliptic indefinites (“bridging” examples, Evans & Wilkins 2000): (8) or he may passe to Ieen or Vinice or some oþer. or he may go to Genoa or Venice or some other (a 1425 Mandeville’s Travels [Carroll 2008: 13]) 15

Early Modern English • In addition to Epistemic adverbs, Comment Clauses, General Extenders, in EMod. E we find Question Tags (Hoffmann 2006, Tottie & Hoffmann 2009). • As PMs many Question Tags do not ask for information and do not get or expect yes-no answers but may: - ask for confirmation (i. e. anticipate a Yes) - express speaker opinion or attitude without anticipating an answer (9), (10) 16

(9) Esau: Come out whores & theues, come out, come out I say. Ragau: I told you, did I not? that there would be a fray. Esau: Come out litle whoreson ape, come out of thy denne. (1550 Iacob and Esau [Tottie & Hoffmann 2009: 142]) • Shakespeare preferred positive-positive polarity (Tottie & Hoffmann 2009): 17

(10) a. Ford: Have I not forbid her my house? She comes of errands, does she? We are simple men, we do not know what’s brought to pass under the profession of fortune-telling. (1602 Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor IV. Ii. 173) b. Slender: How now, Simple! Where have you been? I must wait on myself, must I? You have not the Book of Riddles about you, have you? (1602 Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor I. i. 200) 18

• Use of positive-positive has decreased over time and a new facilitative use has arisen, as in parent or teacher question tags (Tottie & Hoffmann 2009). • Here SP knows and is known to have the information, and only a minimal response is expected: (11) Two and two make four, don’t they. • Note question tags occur at RP, or sometimes medially, not at LP: (12) It’s a mixture isn’t it of original instruments. (ICE-GB: s 1 b-023 #140) (Dehé & Braun 2013: 131) 19

Modern English • In Mod. E a new PM category also occurring mainly at RP (occasionally medially) is Retrospective- Contrastive (Retro-Cont) (then, however, though, actually) (Lenker 2010, Haselow 2012 a, b). More recently, final but, Mulder & Thompson (2008). • As a PM final then “expresses an inference drawn by the speaker that needs to be confirmed by the addressee in order to be added to the common ground shared by the participants” (Haselow 2012 a: 186): (13) A. I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about B. well you have to listen to the tape then (ICE-GB s 1 a-085 [Haselow 2012 a: 190]) 20

• Haselow (2012 b: 163) treats such turns as conditional pairings in which A. ’s condition is contrasted by B. ’s utterance and refuted. Then is “part of a paratactic structure in which it retrospectively links the proposition it accompanies to an immediately preceding propositional unit, creating an implicit conditional relation between them”. • He formulates (13) as (Haselow 2012 a: 191): A: = if you I haven’t the faintest idea what your’re I am talking about � as is the case B: Well you have to listen to the tape then _________________ 21

• Haselow argues that RPPM then originates in conditionals with clause-final then: (14) For if we be clene in levyng for if we be clean in living Ourebodis are Goddis tempyll þan our bodies are God’s temple then In the whilke he will make his dwellyng. in the which he will make his dwelling (The Baptism [YP p. 182. 36; Haselow 2012 b: 164]) 22

• Haselow cites several exs. of what he says are RPPM uses of then in the York Plays and Shakespeare, e. g. : (15) Mrs Ford: [. . . ] There is no hiding you in the house. Falstaff: I’ll go out then. (Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor IV. ii. 63 [Haselow 2012 b: 168]) • These appear to be bridging exs. because can be understood as resultative (not contrasting SP A). • Unambiguous exs. late 17 th. C, early 18 th. C when extended from assertions to questions: 23

(16) Lord Foppington: Why, that's the Fatigue I speak of, Madam: For 'tis impossible to be quiet, without thinking: Now thinking is to me, the greatest Fatigue in the World. Amanda: Does not your Lordship love reading then? Lord Foppington: Oh, passionately, Madam - But I never think of what I read. (1696 Vanburgh, The Relapse [HC ceplay 3 a; Lenker 2010: Appendix B]) • Haselow (2012 b: 191) finds that in contemporary conversation yes-no questions ending in Retro-Cont then with falling intonation anticipate confirmation. Answer in (16), but we cannot tell about prosody. 24

• Lenker (2010) focuses on RPPMs, especially Retro. Conts originating in concessives. Says however developed in 18 th. C, though in 19 th. C: (17) Dorinda: O, Madam, had I but a Sword to help the brave Man? Bountiful: There’s three of four hanging up in the Hall: but they won’t draw. I’ll go fetch one however. (1707 Farquhar, The Beaux Stratagem [HC ceplay 3 b [Lenker 2010: 196]) • I’ll go fetch one contrasts with the possible conclusion ‘therefore I won’t get one’, forcing a reinterpretation as ‘despite the fact that they won’t draw, may be one will be useful after all’. 25

Summary • Incremental development of RPPMs: OE ME EMod. E 1000 1300 1500 1700 Epist Adv ______________ Comment ___________ Gen Extend ___________ Question Tag ________ Retro-Cont ____ • Epistemic Adverb, Comment Clause typically occur at LP. • General Extender, Question Tag, Retrospective Contrast may not. Preferred at RP, but may occur medially. 26

Sequences at periphery • Sequences at LP have been attested mainly from ME on: (18) a. Owe, certes, what I am worthily wroghte with Oh, certainly, what, I am well createdwith wyrschip, iwys! honor truly (1463 -77 Fall of the Angels [YP, 51. 81]) b. Why, surely, man, thou forgettest whom thou talkest to. (1740 Richardson, Pamela [CL I]) 27

• Likewise at RP (though rare): (19) a. Mankynde louyth me wel, wys, as I wene. mankindloves me wel, for-sure, as I think (a 1450 Castle Persev. 985 [MED]) b. They were probably gipsies or something, I dunno. (Pichler & Levey 2010: 21) • RPPMs may be followed by an interjection and/or address term: (20) Why, if she should be innocent, if she should be wronged after all, ha? I don't know what to think (1700 Congreve, The Way of the World, Act V) 28

Relevant systemic changes • Epistemics: Socio-cultural changes in ideology from “faith” to “evidence” may have led to loss (and replacement) of many epistemic PMs, e. g. in truth, sothly, ic wene (Wierzbicka 2006, Bromhead 2009). • Question Tags: Tottie & Hoffmann (2009) link their rise of to the development of not as the default negator: “It appears unlikely that tag questions would have begun to be used when the sole negator was ne, which normally preceded the verb in Old English. As the negator provides the new information and would require end-weight, ne could not have fulfilled this function”. (p. 156) 29

• General Extenders: These developed in ME, but appear to have used with increased frequency in Mod. E. Their paratactic structure and association with colloquial lg. , may be related to colloquialization of styles over the last two centuries. • Colloquialization is the change by which linguistic features characteristic of informal, spoken discourse become more frequent and acceptable in written, especially printed, texts (Mair 1997; see Kytö, Rydén & Smitterberg 2006 for the 19 th. C, Leech, Hundt, Mair & Smith 2009 for the “multifarious and scalar nature of the difference between ‘oral’ and ‘literary’ style” (p. 247) in the 20 th. C). 30

• Retro-Cont: Lenker (2010: 9) notes its development is unusual in the lgs. of Europe. She links it to a “typological change” in English in the late 18 th. C and 19 th. C: a growing preference for adverbial connectives over coordinating conjunctions. • Haselow (2012 b: 154) argues that this syntactic change is interwoven with ongoing changes in discourse organization in spoken English, which continue “as the gravitation of an increasingly high number of lexemes towards the right periphery of an utterance shows”. 31

• Los and Dreschler (2012) note gravitation to the end of the clause and favoring of adverbial anchors in clause-final position in EMod. E after the loss of verbsecond, cf. preference for (21 a) over (21 b): (21) a. he can see the water down below through the grid b. through the grid he can see the water down below 32

Development of PMs as procedural constructionalization • There has been much debate on whether the rise of PMs is a case of grammaticalization (Gzn). Much depends on one’s theory of grammar and of Gzn. • If grammar excludes pragmatics and if Gzn is bleaching, reduction, paradigmatization (Lehmann 1995), the rise of PMs cannot be Gzn, but “pragmaticalization” (Erman & Kotsinas 1983). • If grammar includes pragmatics, and Gzn is seen as context expansion (Himmelmann 2004), because bleaching, paradigmatization lead to increased use, then probably Gzn (Traugott 1997, Brinton 2008, Degand & Simon-Vandenbergen 2011). 33

• PMs often said to be “procedural”, cueing speaker stance/attitude, metatextual comment, etc. (Hansen 1998). • I suggest PMs are the outcome of procedural constructionalization (Cxzn): development of formnew -meaningnew pairs (Traugott & Trousdale Forthc) with distinctive grammatical, pragmatic and discourse functions. • A Construction (Cxn) consists minimally of (Croft 2001): F: syntax, morphology, phonology M: semantics, pragmatics, discourse function. 34

• General Extenders have new F because: - limited to final position - do not occur with focal stress. They have new M because: - have non-specific indefinite semantics - serve backward-looking functions. • Question Tags have new F because: - occur at RP, not independently - normally used with falling intonation, especially if positive-negative (Dehé & Braun 2013: 148 -149). They have new M because: - they are not information-seeking 35

• Retro-Cont then has new F because: - restricted to RP, or medial - cannot have focal stress. It has new M is because: - new discourse-function: retrospective contrastiveness; preferred in turn-final use. • PMs are the outcome of changes from the contentful/lexical pole of the constructicon to the end of the procedural/grammatical pole. • Like other Cxzns they need to be thought of in terms of sets as well as of individual Cxns. 36

Reviewing claims A, B about PMs Claim A. Supposedly defining features of PMs (beyond being pragmatic, largely metatextual) include: (a) cannot be interrogated, negated or focused, (b) have wide scope (modify the whole utterance and not single segments), (c) are positionally mobile, (d) do not form an immediate constituent of the core clause but are syntactically loosely connected to it, (e) have no impact on the truth value of an utterance. 37

(c)-(f) have been challenged with reference to LPPMs, and are definitely challenged by RPPM data. (c) Mobile—only marginally true for General Extenders, Question Tags, Retro-Cont, since never at LP. (d) Not an immediate constituent—unclear for General Extenders and Retro-Cont (e) No impact on truth-value—not true of evidentials (Ifantidou 1994), Comment Clauses I think/believe (Aijmer 2002, Dehé & Wichmann 2010: 18), Retro Conts (Haselow 2012 a, b). These have a mixture of +/-T-values. 38

Claim B. There is a division of labor between LP and RP. • Beeching and Detges (Forthc) suggest: – LP is linked to subjectivity (locus for topic continuity or change) – RP is linked to intersubjectivity (locus for turnyielding, evaluation of what precedes, modality) – Therefore elements recruited to LP undergo Subjectification (Sbfn) RP undergo Inter. Subjectification (Inter. Sbfn) 39

• Regarding modality, sentential modals have been used at LP since OE (e. g. witodlice, Swan 1988). • Regarding Sbfn and Inter. Sbfn, much depends on definitions (for an extensive survey, see López-Couso 2010; also Nuyts 2012). • For me Sbfn is the development of meanings that index speaker attitude or viewpoint, among them modals and metatextual markers. • Inter. Subfn is the development of meanings that index speaker’s relation and attention to the addressee (e. g. Traugott 1989, 2010, Traugott & Dasher 2002). 40

• A distinction needs to be made between - change (Inter)Subjectification - the ambient (Inter)Subjectivity present in lg. use (Benveniste 1971) because in communication speakers frame what they have to say, provide cues to what they mean for addressees. This is as true of The cat sat on the mat as of Well, you won, I guess. 41

• In Sbfn a new M is more based in the speaker’s perspective than the earlier M (e. g. originally spatiotemporal after all is used with meanings such as ‘additionally, despite expectations’). • In Inter. Sbfn a new M more directly cues speaker’s attention to addressee than the earlier M (e. g. originally spatio-temporal and bounded surely ‘securely’ is used to mean not only ‘certainly’ but also ‘I speaker want you addressee to confirm my certainty’, Traugott 2012). • By hypothesis the development of a PM always entails Sbfn since PMs are speaker cues to organization of text, speaker stance, etc. 42

• BUT because cueing metatextual organization is always intersubjective, that does not necessarily mean that Inter. Sbfn has occurred. • Question Tags originate in intersubjective yes-no questions. • But PM use of Q Tags in EMod. E as attitude markers involves loss of intersubjectivity (it is Sbfn at RP). • Confirmation-seeking and facilitative uses elicit rapport; suggest continued Inter. Subectivity, but not Inter. Sbfn. 43

• Contra Beeching and Detges’ (Forthc) hypothesis, some PMs at LP may be used intersubjectively (e. g. surely), some at RP may be used subjectively (e. g. no doubt) (Traugott 2012). • Similarly alors in French may be used in both ways at both peripheries (Degand & Fagard 2011). • In the Bantu language Makhuwa “interpersonal aspects [of va and vo] surface in both peripheries” (Van der Wal 2013: 23 -24). • The extent to which a particular PM will be subjectified or intersubjectified is item-specific. There does not seem to be any strict division of labor between LP and RP in English, let alone universally. 44

Envoi • I have argued that RP is an important site for the development of PMs and should not be neglected. • It challenges some hypotheses about PMs. • If there is indeed “gravitation of an increasingly high number of lexemes towards the right periphery” we can expect RP to become an increasingly used site. The hypothesis of gravitation to the right needs more work. • Serious study of the use of PMs at medial and other positions is also needed. 45

• A complete study of PMs would need to investigate: - which positions a particular PM can occur in, - which are preferred, - what the meaning in each position is, - and what differences there among varieties of English. • Advocating just such as study, for actually in spoken English, Aijmer (1986: 121) identified ten slots, of which only three are used extensively: initial, final, and medial after the focalized element as in: She is not as pretty as she might have been 46

I thanke ʒow sothly 47

Data Sources CL The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts Extended Version, compiled by Hendrik de Smet. https: //perswww. kuleuven. be/~u 0044428/clmet. htm. DOEC Dictionary of Old English Corpus. 2011. http: //www. helsinki. fi/varieng/Co. RD/corpora/DOEC/index. html. HC Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. http: //www. helsinki. fi/varieng/Co. RD/corpora/Helsinki. Corpus/index/html ICE-GB International Corpus of English-Great Britain. http: //icecorpora. net/ice/. MED The Middle English Dictionary. 1956 -2001. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. http: //www. hti. umich. edu/dict/med/. Shakespeare G. Blakemore Evans et al. , eds. 1974. The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. YP The York Plays. 1982. Richard Beadle, ed. London: Arnold. 48

References Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In G. Tottie & I. Bäcklund, English in Speech and Writing: A Symposium, 119 -127. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins Ameka, F. K. 1999. Interjections. In K. Brown & J. Miller, eds. , Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, 213 -216. Oxford: Elsevier. Auer, Peter. 1996. The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6: 295 -322. Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges, eds. Forthc. The Role of Left and Right Periphery in Semantic Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Benveniste, Émile. 1971[1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics, 223 -230, trans. by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables: FL: U of Miami Press. Brems, Lieselotte, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde, eds. , 2012. Intersections of Intersubjectivity, special issue English Text Construction 5. 49

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -----. 2001. Historical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton, eds. , The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 138 -150. Malden, ME: Blackwell. -----. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP. Bromhead, Helen. 2009. The Reign of Truth and Faith: Epistemic Expressions in 16 th and 17 th Century English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Carroll, Ruth. 2008. Historical English phraseology and the extender tag. Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature (SELIM) 15: 7 -38. Cinque, Giulielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures. Studies in Linguistics 2: 42 -58. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 175 -199. Degand, Liesbeth and Benjamin Fagard. 2011. Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18: 29 -56. 50

De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601 -633. Degand, Liesbeth & Anne-Marie Simon Vandenbergen, eds. 2011. Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Special issue of Linguistics 49 (2). Dehé, Nicole & Bettina Braun. 2013. The prosody of question tags. English Language and Linguistics 17: 129 -157. ---- & Anne Wichmann. 2010. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in discourse: Prosodic cues to the semanticpragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17: 1 -28. Erman, Britt & Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap 10: 76 -93. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76: 546 -592. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 51

Haselow, Alexander. 2012 a. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 32: 182– 204. ----. 2012 b. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In I. Hegedüs & A. Fodor, eds. , English Historical Linguistics 2010, 153 -175. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hiltunen, Risto. 2006. Eala, geferan and gode wyrhtan: On interjections in Old English. In J. Walmsley, ed. , Inside Old English: Essays in Honor of Bruce Mitchell, 91 -116. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Himmelmann, Nikolaus 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, 21 -42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in Early and Late Modern English: Historical description and theoretical implications. Anglistik 17: 35 -55. Ifantidou, Elly. 1994. Evidentials and Relevance. Ph. D thesis. UC London. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852 -897. 52

Kytö, Merja, Mats Rydén & Erik Smitterberg. 2006. Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: CUP. Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA. Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen, eds. , Historical Pragmatics, 127 -163. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Los, Bettelou & Gea A. Dreschler. 2012. The loss of verbal anchoring: From adverbial local anchors to permissive subjects. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott, eds. , The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, 859 -872. NY: OUP. Mair, Christian. 1997. Parallel corpora: A real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. In M. Ljung, ed. , Corpus-based Studies in English, 195 -209. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 53

Mulder, Jean & Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. The grammaticalization of but as a final particle in conversation. In L. Ritva, ed. , Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctiosn, 179 -204. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nuyts, Jan. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. In Brems, Ghesquière & Van de Velde, eds. , 53 -76. Onodera, Noriko O. 2011. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In H. Narrog & B. Heine, eds. , The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 614 -624. NY: OUP. Pichler, Heike & Stephen Levey. 2010. Variability in the co-occurrence of discourse features. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers 2: 17 -27. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. Oslo: Novus. Tottie, Gunnel & Sebastian Hoffmann. 2009. Tag Questions in English – The First Century. Journal of English Linguistics, 37: 130 -161. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31 -55. 54

----. 1997. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester, 1995. ----. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens, eds. , Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29 -71. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. ----. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Brems, Ghesquière & Van de Velde, eds. , 7 -28. ---- & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. CUP. ---- & Graeme Trousdale. Forthc. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2013. (Inter)subjectification in Makhuwa: From demonstrative to pragmatic particle. Journal Historical Pragmatics 14: 144. Van der Wouden, Ton & Ad Foolen. 2011. Dutch particles in the right periphery. http: //www. tonvanderwouden. nl/index_files/papers/fipa-201105 b. pdf. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: OUP. 55