Abstract
Cognitive linguistics seeks to account for “a speaker’s knowledge of the full range of linguistic conventions” (LANGACKER, 1987; also GOLDBERG, 2006). It is surprising therefore that little attention has been paid in cognitive linguistics to the linguistic conventions called “discourse markers” (SCHIFFRIN, 1987) or “pragmatic markers” (FRASER, 2009, et passim). Pragmatic markers include signals of attention to social relationships (well, please), beliefs (I think, in fact), and discourse management (after all, anyway). Members of the third subtype are metatextual connectors of discourse segments (“discourse markers” in Fraser’s taxonomy). I argue that because pragmatic markers in general play a major role in negotiating meaning, they are an important part of speakers’ knowledge of language. Pragmatic markers are well-known not to have truth-conditional meaning, and not to be syntactically integrated with the host clause. However, they have conventional pragmatic meanings (HANSEN, 2012; FINKBEINER, 2019). I exemplify my recent research on the historical development in English of metatextual discourse markers with a diachronic construction grammar perspective on by the way (TRAUGOTT, 2020). Focus will be on the importance of routinized, replicated contexts in change (CROFT, 2001; BYBEE, 2010).
Highlights
The 1980s was a period of great excitement about and discovery of the linguistic properties of certain pragmatic expressions that were given different names, as will be addressed below. SCHOURUP (2016[1985]) analyzed well, Oh, and like, in conversation, SCHIFFRIN (1987) social markers, epistemic and inferential markers (I mean, y’know, Oh, ), and connectors, in conversation. Fraser (1988) started his decades-long work categorizing such expressions primarily in constructed examples.All of these studies are synchronic
To date there have been extensive diachronic studies of the rise of epistemic pragmatic markers in English such as I mean, you see (e.g. BRINTON, 1996; 2008; 2019), but few studies have addressed the rise of pragmatic markers and especially of metatextual discourse markers such as after all, by the way from a constructionalist perspective
First to argue that far more attention should be paid to discourse markers than is common in standard British and American grammars, especially in cognitive linguistics, including construction grammar. It is part of a larger enterprise dedicated to infusing more pragmatics into cognitive linguistics and construction grammar in particular (e.g. FINKBEINER, 2019)
Summary
The 1980s was a period of great excitement about and discovery of the linguistic properties of certain pragmatic expressions that were given different names, as will be addressed below. SCHOURUP (2016[1985]) analyzed well, Oh, and like, in conversation, SCHIFFRIN (1987) social markers (well), epistemic and inferential markers (I mean, y’know, Oh, ), and connectors (and, but, or, so, because), in conversation. Fraser (1988) started his decades-long work categorizing such expressions primarily in constructed examples. BRINTON, 1996; 2008; 2019), but few studies have addressed the rise of pragmatic markers and especially of metatextual discourse markers such as after all, by the way from a constructionalist perspective (see, TRAUGOTT, 2018; 2020).. First to argue that far more attention should be paid to discourse markers than is common in standard British and American grammars, especially in cognitive linguistics, including construction grammar. It is part of a larger enterprise dedicated to infusing more pragmatics into cognitive linguistics I follow Fraser in referring to the umbrella set as “pragmatic markers” and the restricted subset of pragmatic markers that are connectors, including topic-orienting markers, as “discourse markers” (DMs).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
