Our focus is on a subclass of discourse markers that we have called “holophrasis” (Galatanu, 1984, 1992, 1997, 2016). We define “holophrasis” from linguistic (syntactic and semantic) and pragmatic criteria (types of language acts, stereotypical contexts, propositional content classes), as prefabricated expressions from a cognitive but also contextual point of view, which: – mark the illocutionary force of an act of speech and the link between that force and a class of contexts in which the act is performed; – incorporate a class of propositional content appropriate to these contexts; – imply the propositional content of the occurrence of the act in situation. From the theoretical perspective of semantics of the argumentative possibilities (Galatanu, 2018), particularly, its extension by a unified semantic approach of Illocutionary forces and their linguistic realizers, we hypothesize that these expressions coming from a pragmaticalization process (Dostie, 2004), have a complex semantics, enriched by the modal complexity of the illocutionary act they perform and by the complexity of the class of discursive contexts to which they refer. This semantics underlies their pragmatic polyfunctionality. We illustrate our theoretical proposition with three holophrasis among those identified as expression of disagreement – ben voyons; allons, allons and et alors/après – and propose a conceptual model (Meunier, 2009) of the illocutionary acts concerned by these expressions.