7.

Historical Discourse Analysis

LAUREL J. BRINTON
Subject Lin uistics ! Discourse Analysis "ey#To$ics %istorical lin uistics DOI& '(.'''')b.*7+(,-'.(/*,+..((-.((((+.0

( Intro1uction
Some years ago, as evidenced by van Dijk's four-volume Handbook of Discourse Analysis (1985), !e !is orical analysis of discourse "as unrecogni#ed$1 %o"ever, !e in ervening &eriod !as seen a "eal ! of s udies, "!ic! !ave been variously ermed '(e" )!ilology* (+leisc!man 199,), '&os --in erdisci&linary &!ilology* (Sell 199.), '!is orical discourse analysis* or '!is orical e/ linguis ics* (0nkvis and 12rvik 19834 555), 'diac!ronic e/ linguis ics* (+ries 1986), or '!is orical &ragma ics* (S ein 1985b7 8ucker 199.)$ 1!ile &roviding an overvie" of some of !ese s udies 9 "!ic! range from de ailed accoun s of &ar icular discourse forms in individual languages o &rogramma ic s a emen s concerning !e na ure or usefulness of !e under aking 9 !e follo"ing c!a& er "ill a em& o describe !is ne" field of endeavor by loca ing discourse analysis in rela ion o !is orical linguis ics and, al erna ively, !is orical linguis ics in rela ion o discourse analysis, and by e/&loring !e mu ual con ribu ions of !ese disci&lines as "ell as !eir &ossible syn !esis$ :n ini ial difficul y "!ic! &resen s i self "!en one a em& s o survey !e field of !is orical discourse analysis is !e de ermina ion of "!a is encom&assed by discourse analysis i self$ S andard rea men s of discourse analysis (e$g$ S ubbs 19867 ;ro"n and <ule 19867 Sc!iffrin 199.) cover a "ide range of o&ics, including co!esion and co!erence, ana&!ora, informa ion s ruc uring ( o&ic-commen , given-ne", focus), urn- aking, boundary-&eak marking, grounding, o&ic or &ar ici&an racking, discourse markers, and segmen a ion (&aragra&! or e&isode marking), on !e one !and, and inference, im&lica ure, &resu&&osi ion, ma/ims of conversa ion, relevance, !e =oo&era ive )rinci&le, &oli eness, and s&eec! ac s, on !e o !er !and$ )ar icularly &roblema ic is !e dis inc ion be "een discourse analysis and &ragma ics (see 1ard and ;irner, !is volume), as sugges ed roug!ly by !e division of o&ics above$ : e/ book accoun of &ragma ics (e$g$ >evinson 1986) covers many of !e same issues as do accoun s of discourse analysis7 &ragma ics is some imes said o encom&ass discourse analysis 9 or !e reverse$ ? !as been sugges ed !a discourse analysis is more e/ -cen ered, more s a ic, more in eres ed in &roduc (in !e "ell- formedness of e/ s), "!ile &ragma ics is more user-cen ered, more dynamic, more in eres ed in !e &rocess of e/ &roduc ion$ Discourse analysis is fre@uen ly e@ua ed "i ! conversa ional analysis, and &ragma ics "i ! s&eec! ac !eory$ ? "ould seem difficul o dis inguis! !e "o "i ! any convic ion, !o"ever7 for e/am&le, discourse markers, suc! as well, so, or you know, !ave bo ! ' e/ ual* func ions in organi#ing discourse (e$g$ marking o&ic or &ar ici&an c!ange, narra ive segmen a ion, discourse y&e, saliency, fore-back ground) 9 func ions falling more under !e rubric of

discourse analysis 9 and 'e/&ressive* func ions, bo ! subjec ive (e$g$ e/&ressing evalua ionem&!asis, focusing on !e s&eaker) and in er&ersonal (e$g$ evoking !e !earer's a en ion, e/&ressing common kno"ledge, deno ing 'nega ive* or '&osi ive* &oli eness) 9 func ions falling under !e rubric of &ragma ics &ro&er (see ;rin on 199A4 6A9.,)$ 1!ile i is no &ossible in !is c!a& er o define !e range of o&ics included in !e field of discourse analysis ( !ese "ill be sugges ed by !is Handbook in i s en ire y), i is useful o unders and !e field broadly as ' !e linguis ic analysis of na urally occurring connected s&oken or "ri en discourse* (S ubbs 19864 1), as being concerned "i ! !e level above !a of !e individual sen ence4 "i ! in ersen en ial connec ions, "i ! global ra !er !an local fea ures, and "i ! !ose forms !a serve o bind sen ences$ (o a em& "ill be made !ere o differen ia e "i ! any e/ac ness be "een discourse analysis and &ragma ics, !oug! !e em&!asis "ill be on !e more formal as&ec s of e/ s ruc ure, suc! as discourse markers or grounding, ra !er !an on !e more no ional elemen s of e/ seman ics, suc! as &resu&&osi ion or conversa ional ma/ims, or on as&ec s of language use$ +or !is reason, cer ain as&ec s of !is orical &ragma ics, es&ecially !ose rela ing o diac!ronic c!anges in !e e/&ression of conversa ional rou ines and &oli eness formulae or in !e s ruc uring of s&eec! even s, "ill no be rea ed !ere$ :s a cross-disci&linary field, !is orical discourse analysis may be a&&roac!ed from a leas "o differen direc ions$ B!e firs a&&roac! involves an a&&lica ion of discourse analysis o language !is ory$ ? is !e s udy of discourse forms, func ions, or s ruc ures 9 !a is, "!a ever is encom&assed by discourse analysis (see above) 9 in earlier &eriods of a language$ B!e a en ion of !e discourse analys is focused on !is orical s ages of a language, ye !e em&!asis remains on discourse s ruc ure$ B!is a&&roac! may be ermed %istorical 1iscourse analysis &ro&er$5 B!e advan age of suc! an a&&roac! is !a i may more sa isfac orily e/&lain !e func ions of many fea ures of older e/ s$ (o e, !o"ever, !a !is a&&roac! is essen ially synchronie, since i involves an analysis, albei a discourse-orien ed one, of a language a a &ar icular s age in i s develo&men $ 1i !in suc! an a&&roac!, !ere are "o &ossible s e&s, one ma&&ing form o func ion ( !e e/&lica ion of !e discourse func ions of &ar icular !is orical forms) and !e o !er ma&&ing func ion o form ( !e iden ifica ion of !is orical forms "!ic! are e/&onen s of &ar icular discourse func ions) (cf$ 8acobs and 8ucker 19954 16ff)$ B!e former direc ion seems o be !e more common in !is orical discourse analysis$6 B!e second a&&roac! involves an a&&lica ion of discourse analysis o !is orical linguis ics$ ? is !e s udy of 'discourse-&ragma ic fac ors* in language c!ange or of !e discourse mo iva ions be!ind diac!ronic c!anges, "!e !er &!onological, mor&!ological, syn ac ic, or seman ic$ B!e a en ion of !e !is orical linguis is focused on discourse ma ers, ye !e em&!asis remains on language c!ange$ ? s!ould be no ed !a a considera ion of discourse fac ors in cer ain kinds of diac!ronic c!ange, suc! as "ord order c!ange, is no recen , and an in eres in discourse-driven or influenced c!ange can no" be seen as almos common&lace$ Suc! an a&&roac! !as !e advan age of &roviding elucida ion of cer ain c!anges and a fuller unders anding of diac!ronic &rocesses of c!ange$ ? may be ermed 1iscourse#oriente1 %istorical lin uistics$. :n e/ ension of !is a&&roac! (da ing back o CivDn 1939a) involves !e s udy of !o" an elemen func ioning on !e discourse level comes o func ion on !e mor&!osyn ac ic or seman ic level$

: !ird a&&roac!, !oug! less "ell develo&ed !an !e o !ers, is more ruly in erdisci&linary, involving a syn !esis of discourse and diac!rony$ ? involves a s udy of !e c!anges in discourse marking, func ions, and s ruc ures over ime$ B!a is, discourse s ruc ure is rea ed on a &ar "i ! &!onological, mor&!ological, syn ac ic, and seman ic s ruc ure as some !ing "!ic! c!anges and develo&s over ime, so !a one mig! legi ima ely alk of discours(al) change as "ell as, for e/am&le, phonological change$ B!is a&&roac! may be ermed 1iac%ronic2ally oriente13 1iscourse analysis. B!e remainder of !e c!a& er "ill e/amine !ese !ree a&&roac!es$

' Historical Discourse Analysis

%is orical s ages of a language of en con ain a&&aren ly meaningless "ords and &ar icles, em& y or re&e i ive &!rases, ine/&licable mor&!ological forms or uses of inflec ional forms, seemingly '&rimi ive* s ylis ic fea ures, and unca egori#able or odd e/ y&es$ 1!ile radi ionally many of !ese fea ures !ave been vie"ed as gramma ical &leonasms, me rical e/&edien s, in ensifiers or em&!a ics, collo@uialisms, or defec s of s yle, i !as &roved frui ful in recen years o re-e/amine !ese fea ures using !e ools of modern discourse analysis$ 1!ile a major s umbling block o suc! a re-e/amina ion "ould a&&ear o be !e lack of oral e/ s from earlier &eriods, since discourse analysis !as y&ically been concerned "i ! !e oral medium, "i ! na urally occurring conversa ions, and oral narra ives, !is is no longer considered a serious im&edimen o !is orical discourse analysis$ +irs , i is generally agreed !a earlier &eriods of mos "ri en languages, es&ecially medieval e/ s in !e ?ndo-0uro&ean languages, are &roduc s of !e ransi ion from an oral o a li era e cul ure and, !oug! no oral e/ s, con ain an 'oral residue* (Eng 198.), !e linguis ic c!arac eris ics of an oral cul ure$ +or +leisc!man, i is &recisely because discourse analysis is concerned "i ! oral e/ s !a i "ill e/&lain many of !e fea ures of medieval li era ure4 '? am convinced !a many of !e disconcer ing &ro&er ies of medieval vernacular e/ sF can find more sa isfying e/&lana ions if "e firs of all ackno"ledge !e e/ en o "!ic! our e/ s s ruc ure informa ion !e "ay a s&oken language does, and !en &roceed o !e linguis ic li era ure !a e/&lores !e &ragma ic under&inning of &arallel &!enomena in na urally occurring discourse* (199,4 56)$ Second, muc! can be deduced abou !e oral form of earlier languages from 's&eec!-based* genres (;iber and +inegan 1995) suc! as cour records, sermons, and drama ic dialogue as "ell as from more collo@uial "ri en genres suc! as &ersonal le ers$ +inally, i !as become increasingly common o a&&ly !e ec! ni@ues of discourse analysis o "ri en e/ s and o recogni#e se&ara e &rinci&les of discourse s ruc ure in suc! e/ s4 '"ri en e/ s can be analy#ed as communica ive ac s in !eir o"n rig! * (8acobs and 8ucker 19954 1,)$ ?n !is orical discourse analysis, &er!a&s !e mos a en ion !as been &aid o "!a >ongacre erms 'mys ery &ar icles,* !a is, o !e 'verbal and nominal affi/es and sen en ial &ar icles G"!ic!H con inue o defy analysis even a a rela ively advanced s age of researc!* (193A4 .A8)7 in con em&orary discourse analysis, mys ery &ar icles are more y&ically ermed discourse markers (Sc!iffrin 1983) or pragmatic markers (;rin on 199A4 5996,, .,) and include suc! forms as well, now, so, and y'know in Iodern 0nglis!$5 Jie"ed radi ionally, discourse markers are considered o be of inde ermina e "ord class and uncer ain meaning$ ;u as >ongacre observes, mys ery &ar icles almos inevi ably '!ave a func ion "!ic! rela es o a uni larger !an !e sen ence, i$e$ o !e &aragra&! and !e discourse* (193A4 .A8)$

? !as been convincingly argued !a a number of &ar icles can be unders ood as func ioning as discourse markers "i ! e/ ual and in er&ersonal func ions7 !ere, s&ace &ermi s only a sam&ling of ar icles discussing &ar icles in !e !is ory of !e Cermanic and Komance languages$ +or e/am&le, several "orks !ave rea ed Eld 0nglis! (E0) pa L !enM7 i !as been seen as a foregrounder, a foreground 'drama i#er,* a se@uencer of even s, a marker of collo@uial s&eec!, a &eak marker, and a narra ive segmen er (0nkvis 1935, 198A7 0nkvis and 12rvik 19837 12rvik 199,, 1995a, 1995b7 see also %o&&er 1939, 1995) or &rimarily as a s!if marker (Nim 1995)$ Similar func ions !ave been a ribu ed o !e cogna e thoin Eld Sa/on and Eld %ig! Cerman (1ilbur 19887 ;e en 1995)$ E0 adverbials suc! as th L!ereM and n Lno"M, as "ell as a varie y of forms in !e la er &eriods (e$g$ before afore fore, abo!e, the said, hereafter), !ave a ' e/ deic ic* func ion in e/&ressing !e &oin "!ere !e s&eaker or "ri er is a !e momen (+ries 1996, 199.)$ =om&aring !e E0 adverbs witodlice Lcer ainlyM and soplice L rulyM "i ! !eir mos common >a in coun er&ar , autem (see Nroon 1995) and "i ! !e use of pa, >enker (5,,,) argues !a !ey serve as !ig!lig! ing devices and as markers of e&isode boundaries or s!if s in !e narra ive (func ionally e@uivalen o pa gelamp hit p"t7 see belo")$ ? !as also been sugges ed !a sona and p"rrihte Limmedia ely, a onceM signal !e '&eak #one* of E0 narra ives (1arvik 1995a)$ ? !ave argued !a E0 hw"t L"!a M serves as an a en ion-ge er and as a marker of s!ared kno"ledge (;rin on 199A)$ Kudernik (1995, 199A4 1,195,) !as looked a !e use of so, but, and, and thenne as e&isodic narra ive markers in Iiddle 0nglis! (I0)$ +isc!er (1998) e/em&lifies !e use of marry (O #ary), beginning in I0 and &eaking in !e si/ een ! cen ury, as a e/ ual marker used o claim !e floor a !e beginning of a urn and as an in er &ersonal marker e/&ressing a range of s&eaker a i ude$ ?n S!akes&eare, why may be used as a discourse marker o dra" a logical conclusion from "!a !as gone before, of en giving a one of su&eriori y and &o en ial dis&aragemen , "!ile what may be used o e/&ress sur&rise or increduli y, "!ic! of en urns in o con em& or scorn (;lake 1995)$ ?n erjec ions in 0arly Iodern 0nglis! (0Iod0), suc! as ah, alas, fie, oh, tush, and welaway, Baavi sainen argues (1995), are a subse of discourse markers7 !ey 'encode s&eaker a i udes and communica ive in en ions* (.69), are 'delibera e devices in mani&ula ing reader involvemen * (.A6), and may serve e/ ual func ions in some genres$ Similar argumen s !ave been adduced for various mys ery &ar icles in !e !is ory of !e Komance languages, suc! as Eld +renc! mar L"oe un o youM, si, and !e loca ive &ar icles ci, $a L!ereM, la, iluec L !ereM (see +leisc!man 199, for a summary of !ese ar icles)$ Keisc!man (1995) argues !a Eld +renc! si (un ransla able) func ions as a main-clause marker of subjec - o&ic con inui y, "!ile e/&lici subjec &ronouns mark s"i c!-reference$ ;olkes ein and van de Crif (199.) s!o" !a !e c!oice in >a in among !e ana&!oric &ar icles is, hic, ille, iste, and P is &ragma ically-func ionally mo iva ed$ ?n a de ailed s udy, Nroon (1995) argues !a differences among !e >a in adversa ive conjunc ions at, autem, and !ero and causal conjunc ions warn, enim, igitur, and ergo canno be e/&lained ade@ua ely as a ma er of rela ive s reng !, bu !a discourse y&e and communica ive-e/&ressive value mus be considered4 nam and autem occur &rimarily in monologic discourse and e/&ress e/ ual connec ions in !e s ric sense7 enim and vero occur &rimarily in dialogic discourse and func ion as 'si ua ing &ar icles* indica ing !e involvemen of !e discourse &ar ici&an s, "!ile ergo and at !ave an in erac ional func ion as "ell as a e/ ual (connec ive) func ion$ ?n ano !er s udy of >a in &ar icles, Kisselada (199.) &oin s ou !a a full unders anding of direc ive markers (e$g$ dum, age, modo, %uin, !ero, sane, proinde) de&ends on a kno"ledge no only of !eir basic meaning bu also of !e level of !e u erance o "!ic! !ey &er ain and !e &ragma ic and con e/ ual &ro&er ies of !e u erance in "!ic! !ey are used$A

?n sum, i !as been &ossible o argue !a ers "!ile mys ery &ar icles in older s ages of languages s!are many, if no all, of !e fea ures of discourse markers in modern languages$ B!ey are normally marginal in "ord class, !e erogeneous in form, of !ig! fre@uency, &!one ically s!or , ou side !e syn ac ic s ruc ure of !e clause, sen ence-ini ial, lacking in &ro&osi ional con en , o& ional, difficul o ransla e, and s ylis ically s igma i#ed$ Ioreover, !ey e/!ibi all of !e e/ ual func ions 9 grounding, saliency or &eak marking, narra ive segmen a ion 9 as "ell as !e s&eaker- and !earer- orien ed e/&ressive func ions, including !ose of in ernal and e/ ernal evalua ion, of modern discourse markers (see ;rin on 1995)$3 Bense-as&ec mor&!ology, because of i s func ion in conce& uali#ing and &lacing even s in ime, &lays a s&ecial role in discourse s ruc uring and !ence !as been s udied by !is orical discourse analys s$ +or !e s uden of medieval li era ure, !e '!is oric(al) &resen * 9 !e use of !e &resen ense in a &as - ense narra ive, of en "i ! ra&id and seemingly ine/&licable al erna ions be "een &as and &resen 9 offers !e mos obvious &!enomenon "!ere a discourse analysis mig! &rovide a more sa isfac ory e/&lana ion !an !as !us far been given$ ? !as radi ionally been e/&lained ei !er as a me rical e/&edien or as an in ensifying, vivifying, or em&!a ic device$ (umerous e/ce& ions can be found, !o"ever, in "!ic! !e a&&earance of !e !is orical &resen canno be accoun ed for by ei !er !eory$ 0/ ra&ola ing from "ork on !e !is oric &resen in modern oral narra ives, !erefore, "!ic! !as sugges ed i s role in narra ive segmen a ion, foregrounding, and in ernal evalua ion, sc!olars !ave argued !a !e !is orical &resen in medieval e/ s from differen radi ions serves discourse roles4 in Eld +renc!, i marks foregrounded even s of '!ig!es saliency,* is a device for in ernal evalua ion, and is c!arac eris ic of oral &erformed narra ive (+leisc!man 1985, 198A)7 in I0, i deno es main even s, in roduces cen ral c!arac ers, and !ig!lig! s key descri& ive de ails (Kic!ardson 1991)7 and in Eld (orse, i frames and s ages !e narra ive, marking ransi ions be "een e&isodes, dis inguis!ing s&eakers, and &roviding in ernal evalua ion (Kic!ardson 1995)$ +or bo ! +leisc!man and Kic!ardson, vividness and e/ci emen are a conse@uence of !e e/ organi#ing func ion of !e !is orical &resen , no !e &rimary func ion of !e form$ B!e overarc!ing func ion of !e &resen ense in =!arlo e ;ron e's nine een !-cen ury narra ive seems o be !a of evalua ion, "!ile !e !is orical &resen is used for foregrounding and in ernal evalua ion7 'drama i#a ion* and 'vivid visuali#a ion* con ribu e o !e form's evalua ive func ion (;rin on 1995)$ Discourse s udies !ave also focused on !e func ion of as&ec ual forms$ =onsonan "i ! general &rinci&les of grounding, %o&&er (19394 51995A) concludes !a in E0 narra ive !e foreground is c!arac eri#ed by verbs in !e &erfec ive as&ec deno ing single dynamic, &unc ual, elic even s, "!ereas !e background is c!arac eri#ed by verbs in !e im&erfec ive as&ec deno ing s a es or dura ive-i era ive-!abi ual a elic &rocesses$8 >ooking a o !er as&ec ual forms in E0, Kic!ardson argues !a 'non&erfec ive* forms, including mo ion, &erce& ion, and ingressive verbs, "i ! accom&anying infini ive, signal ne" e&isodes, accelera e ac ions for drama ic effec , and es ablis! &oin of vie"7 like"ise, !e &erfec in I0 serves o mark narra ive boundaries (199.)$ ? argue !a I0 inc!oa ive gan LbeganM serves a demarca ing func ion and slo"s !e narra ive do"n, "!ile &erfec ive anon La once, immedia elyM marks salien ac ion and s&eeds a narra ive u& (;rin on 199A)$ +inally, a number of s udies !ave also sugges ed discourse func ions for 0Iod0 do as a &eak marker, informa ion focuser, or even foregrounder (S ein 1985a7 1rig! 1989)$9

+leisc!man (199,4 6A) concludes !a ense-as&ec forms serve a varie y of im&or an roles in discourse4 !ey may !ave e/ ual func ions (e$g$ grounding, crea ing co!esion, marking boundaries, or modula ing &ace), e/&ressive func ions (e$g$ e/&ressing evalua ion or &oin of vie"), and me alinguis ic func ions (e$g$ signaling e/ y&e)$ )ronominal forms, because of !eir ana&!oric and referen ial func ions, &lay an im&or an role in discourse s ruc uring and !ence !ave also received !e a en ion of !is orical discourse analys s$ +or e/am&le, i !as been sugges ed !a !e demons ra ive &ronoun this in I0 (as in ' !is )andarus*) func ions as a foregrounder (Kudernik 19957 Sell 1985)$ 1ork on 0Iod0 !as a ribu ed a discourse func ion o !e varian &ersonal &ronominal forms you thou (see references in S ein 1985b4 6.8)4 =alvo (1995) argues !a in addi ion o nego ia ing social iden i ies and e/&ressing a i udinal fea ures, !ese forms may deno e a c!ange in conversa ional o&ic and mark discourse boundaries7 similarly, %o&e (199.) sees !ese forms as !aving no only a 'macro-&ragma ic* func ion in encoding !e differen ial s a us of !e in erlocu ors, bu a 'micro-&ragma ic* func ion in e/&ressing emo ional a i ude$ 1ales (1995) also sees a discourse role for !e generali#ing your (i$e$ 'no your average &erson*) in 0Iod07 in addi ion o i s generic or gnomic meaning, i !as various kinds of e/&ressivi y4 a deic ic, focusing func ion, a second &erson discourse a"areness, and a generally dismissive one$ : number of !e recogni#ed discourse markers in Iodern 0nglis! consis of &!rases (e$g$ after all, all right, and stuff like that) or clauses, some imes called 'commen clauses* (e$g$ & mean, you see, that's right)$ B!us, i is no sur&rising !a fi/ed e/&ressions in older language, in addi ion o !eir func ion as oral formulae, are coming o be recogni#ed as discourse markers$ +or e/am&le, E0 pa gelamp hit p"t and I0 then bifel it that L !en i !a&&ened !a M can bes be unders ood as a me acommen ary marking an e&isode boundary and e/&ressing !e 'subsidiary foreground,* !e ins iga ing even of an e&isode$ E0 hw"t pa L"!a !enM moves !e narra ive for"ard, e/&ressing !e fac !a !e even "!ic! follo"s can be inferred from !e &revious even $ ?n con ras , I0 what (ho) makes a claim on !e a en ion of !e in erlocu or (;rin on 199A)$ Ioreover, i is &ossible o find !e origin of modern fi/ed e/&ressions in earlier s ages of a language$ Iodern 0nglis! &aren !e icals suc! as & think suppose guess (subjec ive) or it seems (objec ive) arise in early I0 as & gesse trowe deme or it seemeth7 in addi ion o !aving e&is emic and eviden ial meaning, !ey serve &ur&oses of in imacy and '&osi ive* &oli eness (self-effacemen and deference)$ (onfirs &erson e&is emic &aren !e icals (e$g$ 'od knows) also arise in early I0 as 'od woot, trusteth me wel, and serve as an a em& by !e s&eaker o &ersuade !e !earer of !e ru ! of !e u erance$ >ike"ise, !e very common Iodern 0nglis! discourse marker, you know y'know, arises in I0 as ye knowen, &er!a&s as a re&lacemen for E0 hw"t (see above) (;rin on 199A)$ B!e rela ion of "ord order &a erns o discourse fac ors suc! as o&ic-commen , !ema i#a ion, and focus is "ell kno"n$ :n accoun of suc! &!enomena, "!ic! !ave been "idely s udied in !e "ord order of older languages, is beyond !e sco&e of !is c!a& er$ %o"ever, a some"!a broader vie" of discourse fac ors in !e "ord order of an !is orical language is aken by %o&&er (1939, 1995), "!o sugges s !a "ord order in E0 can be accoun ed for by a !eory of grounding$ %e argues !a !e foreground is c!arac eri#ed by (S)EJ or JS (E) ('verb &eri&!eral*) "ord order, "!ile !e background is c!arac eri#ed by (S)JE "ord order$ ?n res&ec o verb &eri&!eral order, (S)EJ is used in ernal o e&isodes "i ! o&ical subjec s and

JS (E) is used a !e beginning of minor e&isodes and "i ! a c!ange in subjec or o&ic$ (S)JE is used for !e beginning of main e&isodes and for global backgrounding$ +inally, i !as been sugges ed !a y&ologies accoun ing for curren e/ s and !e enumera ion of fea ures c!arac eris ic of differen e/ y&es may no be ade@ua e for a classifica ion of e/ s from !e &as , since conven ions of genre are defined by a varie y of fac ors, including forms of !e language, o&ic, si ua ion, and medium (see CQrlac! 19954 36A9..)7 +ries asser s, for e/am&le, !a 'i mus no be aken for gran ed !a e/ -linguis ic rules for &resen -day 0nglis! are also valid for !e older &eriods of !e language* (19864 1,16)$ Rues ions of differences of e/ ual conven ions fall under "!a 8acobs and 8ucker (19954 11) call '&ragma&!ilology,* or ' !e con e/ ual as&ec s of !is orical e/ s, including !e addressers and addressees, !eir social and &ersonal rela ions!i&, !e &!ysical and social se ing of e/ &roduc ion and e/ rece& ion, and !e goal(s) of !e e/ $* 1i !in !e field of !is orical discourse analysis, !ere !ave been s udies of various genres a differen &eriods, bu no com&re!ensive accoun s$ +or e/am&le, Keisc!man (199,4 6.95) considers !e discourse func ion of !e laisse in !e Eld +renc! e&ic genre, CQrlac! (1995) e/amines !e conven ions of 0nglis! cookery books from !e &as , %Sllen (1995) uncovers !e s ruc ures in =a/ on's dialogues on language learning, and Jir anen (1995) looks a discourse s ra egies in 0Iod0 ravelogues$

. Discourse#oriente1 Historical Lin uistics

B!e second a&&roac! o !is orical discourse analysis is one "!ic! seeks o find !e origins and-or mo iva ions of diac!ronic c!ange in discourse$ B!is a&&roac! !as been ascendan in recen years$ Since i "ould be im&ossible o give a com&le e &ic ure of !e resul s of !is a&&roac!, !is sec ion can only !in a areas in "!ic! !ese y&es of s udies !ave concen ra ed$ ? !as become almos s andard &rac ice in linguis ic researc! o consider discourse-&ragma ic fac ors as &ossible causes, mo iva ions, or essen ial as&ec s of !is orical c!ange$ B"o areas of c!ange in "!ic! discourse mo iva ions seem mos clearly a "ork are "ord order c!ange and gramma icali#a ion$ ? "ould seem obvious o conclude !a jus as !ere is an essen ial link sync!ronically be "een "ord order and discourse, !ere s!ould be suc! a link be "een "ord order change and discourse$ B!e "ork of +aarlund (1985, 1989) on '&ragma ic syn a/* is y&ical of !is a&&roac! o "ord order c!ange$ +aarlund argues !a ' !e goal Gof &ragma ic syn a/H is o accoun for !e c!oices s&eakers make be "een sys ema ically rela ed surface s ruc ures "i ! e@uivalen cogni ive con en * in erms of fac ors suc! as !eme, focus, and dominance7 in o !er "ords, "!enever "o or more (synonymous) syn ac ic forms e/is , !ere are &ragma ic reasons for using one ra !er !an !e o !er$ %e believes !a syn ac ic c!ange can be e/&lained in erms of &ragma ic syn a/, for if a ne" form a&&ears and becomes &ragma ically more useful, i may lead o syn ac ic res ruc uring, or "!a +aarlund calls !e 'gramma icali#a ion of &ragma ics* (19854 6AA98, 68A)$ :s an e/am&le of suc! c!ange, !e discusses !e c!ange from EJ o JE "ord order in Cermanic$ B!e rig! "ard movemen of !e objec s!ould no be e/&lained as a rare and !ig!ly marked af er !oug! , bu by a universal &ragma ic &rinci&le of focusing$ Similarly, Ciacalone Kama (199,) argues !a a discourse-func ional e/&lana ion is needed for "ord order c!anges from >a in o Komance (loss of 1ackernagel's >a", loss of verb-final order, cli ici#a ion of &ronouns o !e lef of !e verb)$

Iore recen ly, i !as come o be recogni#ed !a discourse fac ors &lay a role in !e &rocess of gramma icali#a ion$1, : "idely acce& ed vie" of gramma icali#a ion is !a ra !er !an involving seman ic 'bleac!ing* (loss of meaning) or me a&!or, as !as radi ionally been assumed, i involves a c!ange from conversa ional o conven ional im&lica ure7 !a is, a conversa ional im&lica ure arising in cer ain local discourse con e/ s becomes 'seman ici#ed,* or assimila ed as &ar of !e conven ional meaning of !e gramma icali#ed "ord$ B!is y&e of c!ange !as been called '&ragma ic s reng !ening* or 's reng !ening of informa iveness* (Braugo and NQnig 19917 %o&&er and Braugo 19964 A6ff7 Braugo 1995b)$ (umerous e/am&les of !e role of conversa ional im&lica ure in gramma icali#a ion !ave been adduced by Braugo , &rimarily from !e !is ory of 0nglis!$ :n ins ance of suc! a seman ic s!if is !e c!ange from em&oral o causal meaning in !e gramma icali#a ion of E0 si&&an LsinceM from adverb o conjunc ion, from !e meaning Lfrom !e ime !a M o !e meaning LbecauseM, "!ic! resul s from seman ici#a ion of !e meaning of LcauseM "!ic! arises in cer ain con e/ s$ 1orking "i !in !e same frame"ork, =arey (199.), considering !e early gramma icali#a ion of !e &erfec in E0, sees !e s!if from s a ive (adjec ival) o &erfec (verbal) meaning, !a is, from &resen s a e of an objec o &as &rocess &erformed on an objec , as !e conven ionali#a ion of an invi ed inference$ ;urridge (19954 369.) ci es a number of e/am&les from )ennsylvania Cerman "!ere increased &ragma ic meaning is !e ou come of gramma icali#a ion4 !e c!ange of als from an adverb T !abi ual as&ec uali#er T discourse &ar icle7 !e develo&men of fu ures "i ! geh L o goM and (ehle L o coun M7 !e develo&men of a &rogressive from !e loca ive cons ruc ion sei L o beM U am draa Lon, a M7 and !e c!ange of duh L o goM from !abi ual o &resen $ Baking in o accoun communica ive in en , s&eaker a i ude (&rominence, (de)em&!asis, vie"&oin ), grounding, and !ema ic con inui y, 0&s ein (199., 1995) !as s udied !e gramma icali#a ion of !e >a in demons ra ive ille as a defini e ar icle le ) in +renc!7 for e/am&le, !e #ero ar icle in +renc! e/&resses a lo" degree of individua ion and !ence !as a backgrounding func ion7 i serves a role in signaling !e "ay a s&eaker manages !e flo" of informa ion$11 ?n 1939a, Civon argued for !e follo"ing !is orical &rogression4 discourse T syn a/ T mor&!ology T mor&!o&!onemics T #ero15 %e sa" !e firs "o s e&s as mo iva ed &rimarily by communica ive needs and !e las "o by &!onological a ri ion$ ?n discussions of !is &rogression, in eres !as focused on !e c!ange from looser, conjoined, &ara ac ic cons ruc ions o more ig! ly bound subordina ed cons ruc ions, e$g$ from fini e clause o nonfini e com&lemen , from o&ic clause o rela ive clause, and so on7 o !er e/am&les of !is &rogression ("i ! an em&!asis on !e ini ial discourse T syn a/ s e&) include !e c!ange from o&ic o subjec marking or from old-ne" informa ion marking o case func ions$ B!e s rong in er&re a ion of Civon's no" "idely ci ed &rogression, "!ic! is &robably no enable, is !a all syn a/ resul s from !e fossili#a ion of original discourse forms$ : "eaker in er&re a ion 9 !a "!a begins as a discourse s ra egy may some imes be reanaly#ed as syn a/ 9 !as &rovided frui ful means of a&&roac!ing some !is orical develo&men s$ +or e/am&le, ;urridge (1995) argues !a in )ennsylvania Cerman, !e da ive of &ossession, "!ic! begins as a r!e orical device for &romo ing &ersonal involvemen , develo&s in o !e regular syn ac ic marker of &ossession, dis&lacing !e original &ossessive geni ive7 fur !ermore, !e seman ic s!if involves a conversa ional im&lica ure from close rela ions!i& o &ossession$ +aarlund (1985, 1989) sees !e rise of an obliga ory subjec "i ! s&ecific

syn ac ic &ro&er ies from Eld (orse o Iodern (or"egian as !e resul of a o&icali#a ion rule moving !e () "!ic! is no mos !ig!ly ranked seman ically (bu "!ic! is mos !ig!ly ranked !ema ically) o !e lef 7 !e moved () !en ac@uires !e gramma ical func ion of subjec $ 1iegand (1985, 1983) argues !a !e E0 cons ruc ion for U demons ra ive &ronoun (U pe) begins as a &ragma ic indica or of co!esion be "een "o uni s of discourse, "i ! !e demons ra ive inde/ing !e cause$ :s case marking is los in I0, !e demons ra ive is no longer analy#able as a deic ic, and !e cons ruc ion is reanaly#ed as a sim&le conjunc ion$ NQnig (1995) sugges s !a disjunc ive (whether), @uan ifica ional (what where howe!er), and scalar (e!en) condi ionals in 0nglis! and Cerman s ill s!o" evidence of deriving from a ju/ a&osed or loosely connec ed clause$

- Diac%ronically Oriente1 Discourse Analysis

B!e !ird y&e of !is orical discourse analysis is one "!ic! e/amines !e evolu ion of discourse marking over ime, "!e !er focusing on !e develo&men of individual discourse markers or on c!anges in sys ems of discourse marking$16 : number of @ues ions arise in !e s udy of !e develo&men of discourse markers4

1 1!a is !e source of discourse formsV 1!a seman ic and syn ac ic &ro&er ies &redis&ose !em o e/&ress cer ain discourse no ionsV 5 1!a is !e course of !eir seman ic and syn ac ic develo&men V Do !ey follo" recogni#ed &rinci&les of c!angeV 6 %o" do !ey fare over imeV 1!a c!anges do !ey undergo and "!yV Bo "!a e/ en are !ey ransien V

Ios s udies of !e evolu ion of discourse markers !ave rela ed !eir develo&men o !e unilinear course of gramma ?deali#a ion &ro&osed by Braugo (19854 553), from &ro&osi ional-idea ional o ( e/ ual) o in er&ersonal-e/&ressive meaning,1. follo"ing !ree &rinci&les of seman ic c!ange (Braugo and NQnig 19914 5,899)4

W endency ?4 from meanings si ua ed in !e e/ ernal described si ua ion o meanings si ua ed in !e in ernal (evalua ive-&erce& ual-cogni ive) si ua ion7 W endency ??4 from meanings si ua ed in !e described e/ ernal or in ernal si ua ion o meanings si ua ed in !e e/ ual-me alinguis ic si ua ion7 W endency ???4 o meaning increasingly si ua ed in !e s&eaker's subjec ive beliefs a e-Xa i ude o"ard !e si ua ion$

Bendencies ? and ?? are me a&!orically driven, "!ile endency ??? is me onymically driven, involving an increase in informa iveness or a conven ionali#ing of conversa ional im&lica ure (see above)$ Bendency ??? resul s in 'subjec ifica ion,* or ' !e develo&men of a gramma ically iden ifiable e/&ression of s&eaker belief and s&eaker a i ude o"ard "!a is said* (Braugo 1995b4 65)$ Braugo gives !e e/am&les of !e discourse markers well, right, and why moving from &ro&osi ional o e/ ual o in er&ersonal meaning (19854 551, 555, 555), of let's, moving from a second &erson im&era ive o a firs &erson !or a ive o a discourse marker meaning !a !e s&eaker is cogni#an of !e !earer, of let alone develo&ing from an im&era ive o a discourse marker e/&ressing !e s&eaker's e&is emic a i ude, and of !e subjec of & think losing i s

referen ial &ro&er ies and becoming !e s ar ing &oin of a &ers&ec ive (1995b4 6A99)$ Sc!"en er and Braugo (19957 also Braugo for !coming7 Babor and Braugo 1998) &oin o !e ac@uisi ion of discourse func ions for !e 'subs i u ive com&le/ &re&osi ions* instead in place in lieu of, "!ic! origina e as &urely loca ive e/&ressions bu come o encode an im&lica ure of (coun er) e/&ec a ion$ =i ing !e develo&men of indeed, in fact, besides, and am way in !e !is ory of 0nglis!, Braugo (1995a, for !coming7 Babor and Braugo 1998) argues for a cline4 clause-in ernal adverbial T sen en ial adverb T discourse marker (deno ing elabora ion- clarifica ion of discourse con en )$ Kickford e al$ (19954 11995A) discuss !e develo&men of as far as from a marker of dis ance or e/ en o a o&ic res ric or beginning in !e seven een ! cen ury, again from a clause-in ernal adverb o a discourse marker (see also Braugo for !coming)$ 1orking "i !in !e same model,15 Enodero (1995) sees !e 8a&anese adversa ive conjunc ions demo and dakedo c!anging from idea ional T e/ ual T e/&ressive and in erjec ions suc! as ne c!anging from e/&ressive T e/ ual-e/&ressive, bo ! moving from less o more &ersonal$ Nryk-Nas ovsky (1993) looks a !e s!if in !e adverbs now in 0nglis!, nun in Cerman, and no na in Slavic (cf$ E=S nyn*) from &ro&osi ional o e/ ual-&ragma ic meaning and !eir evolu ion as markers of s&eaker a i ude$ +inell (1989, 1995) observes a similar course of develo&men "i ! well in 0nglis! and "i ! o&ic c!angers, including in roducers (now), closers (howe!er), and resumers (anyhow)$1A ?n general, researc! !as found !a in !eir develo&men , discourse markers undergo many of !e mor&!osyn ac ic and seman ic c!anges iden ified "i ! !e &rocess of gramma icali#a ion,13 !oug! never, of course, being fully 'gramma icali#ed* in !e sense of being incor&ora ed in o a recogni#ed gramma ical &aradigm nor generally undergoing &!onological reduc ion or mor&!ological bonding$18 B!ey are subjec o !e follo"ing c!anges, all of "!ic! are !oug! o be y&ical of gramma icali#a ion4

1 deca egoriali#a ion4 loss of !e mor&!ological and syn ac ic c!arac eris ics of !eir original "ord class)7 5 c!ange from o&en o closed class members!i& (Braugo for !coming)7 6 syn ac ic fi/a ion4 loss of syn ac ic variabili y and occu&a ion of a fi/ed slo (bu see Braugo 1995b)7 . 'divergence* (%o&&er 1991) or 's&li *4 re en ion of full le/ical c!arac eris ics in some con e/ s alongside gramma icali#a ion in o !er con e/ s7 and 5 'layering* (%o&&er 1991)4 con inua ion of older, more !ig!ly gramma icali#ed forms ne/ o ne"er, less gramma icali#ed forms$

Seman ically, discourse markers e/!ibi 'seman ic a& ness,* or a&&ro&ria eness for !e y&e of discourse marker !a !ey become7 more im&or an ly, !eir seman ic develo&men &rovides evidence for unidirec ionali y, for referen ial (&ro&osi ional) meaning being !e source for &ragma ic ( e/ ual and in er&ersonal) meanings (see ;rin on 19957 Braugo 1995b, for !coming)$ ? mig! be argued !a discourse markers do no undergo 'condensa ion* (loss of syn ac ic sco&e), since in !eir discourse func ion !ey rela e no o individual "ords or even clauses bu o larger s re c!es of discourse7 in fac , Babor and Braugo (1998) c!allenge !e no ion of sco&e reduc ion (from 'loose* o ' ig! * syn a/) in !e &rocess of gramma icali#a ion generally$ ? !ave argued (;rin on 199A) !a in i s evolu ion from in erroga ive o com&lemen i#er o discourse marker, E0 hw"t becomes a &ar icle of inde ermina e s a us and assumes fi/ed,

ini ial &osi ion, al"ays occurring "i ! firs or second &erson &ronouns$ ? s in erroga ive sense &ermi s i o become a marker "!ic! @ues ions common kno"ledge, e/&resses sur&rise, and focuses a en ion$ I0 gan, in i s c!ange from as&ec ual marker o urn-of-even marker o em&!a ic-in ensive marker, develo&s from a full verb o a (@uasi-)au/iliary, generally occurring "i ! !e bare infini ive, and becomes fi/ed in !e !ird &erson &re eri e$ ? s ince& ive seman ics mo iva es i s develo&men as a e/ ual marker "!ic! focuses on !e ensuing ac ion$ I0 anon, develo&ing from loca ive- em&oral meaning o !e meaning of saliency-im&or ancese@uence and !en of "illingness-readiness, loses !e cardinal c!arac eris erics of a &redica e adverbial, and follo"s Braugo 's cline (see above)$ ? s &erfec ive seman ics mo iva es i s develo&men as a e/ ual marker "!ic! em&!asi#es !e se@uence of even s$ +a gelamp hit p"t in E0 and then bifel it that in I0 become uni ary and &ar icle-like7 !eir general meaning of L!a&&eningM makes !em sui able as e&isode boundary markers$ ?n I0, &aren !e icals suc! as & gesse become fi/ed in !e firs &erson, &resen ense, and undergo a seman ic c!ange from ac of cogni ion, o mode of kno"ing (eviden iali y), o (un)cer ain y (e&is emici y), and finally o in imacy-&oli eness$19 Ysing evidence suc! as i s increasing fi/edness in !e firs &erson, i s occurrence sen ence-ini ially "i !ou that or &aren !e ically, and even i s or !ogra&!y, )alander-=ollin (199A, 1993) sees !e gramma icali#a ion of !e im&ersonal verbal &!rase methinks as a sen ence adverbial indica ing eviden iali y, o&inion, or subjec ive ru !$5, :kimo o (5,,,) discusses !e gramma icali#a ion of & pray you thee , & pray , pray prithee as a 'cour esy marker*7 in aking on an in erjec ional use, occurring &aren !e ically in mid and final &osi ion, !e verb pray undergoes deca e-goriali#a ion and syn ac ic subordina ion (or loss of sco&e) as "ell as seman ic bleac!ing (see also )alander=ollin 199A4 1.8, 19934 696)$ +inally, >enker (5,,,) observes !e gramma icali#a ion of E0 witodlice and so&lice from ru !-in ensifying, s&eaker-orien ed adverbs "i ! sen en ial sco&e o discourse markers serving as !ig!lig! ers and markers of discourse discon inui y$ ?n addi ion o !e evolu ion of individual discourse markers, a en ion !as also been &aid o larger c!anges in &a erns of discourse s ruc uring, from one sys em of discourse marking o ano !er sys em$ +or e/am&le, 1arvik (199,) sees a ' y&ological* s!if in !e !is ory of 0nglis! from !e e/&lici foreground-marking sys em of E0, cen ered on !e use of &a ' !en*, o !e 'fu##y* backgrounding sys em of Iodern 0nglis!, "!ic! de&ends on !e ense-as&ec sys em (sim&le vs$ e/&anded enses) and !e syn ac ic s a us of clauses7 s!e rela es !is s!if o a c!ange from oral o li era e ec!ni@ues of grounding (cf$ :ris ar and Dry 1985)$ +ludernik (1995) sees !e leveling of !e foregrounding func ion of &a coun erac ed by various devices in I0, including pis (), so, thus, and anon o deno e foreground and &resen &ar ici&les o deno e background$ I0 penne than ' !en* becomes &rimarily a em&oral marker of se@uence (1arvik 1995a7 +ludernik 1995) or serves o mark !e onse of a narra ive e&isode, !oug! "i ! decreasing fre@uency (+ludernik 199A4 1,1)$51 : fundamen al c!ange in narra ive organi#a ion "!ic! mig! also be a ribu ed o !e oral T li era e s!if is !e re&lacemen of foregrounded me acommen aries suc! as pa gelamp hit p"t deno ing e&isode boundaries in E0 "i ! backgrounded, &re&osed whan-clauses in I0 (;rin on 199A7 also Kudernik 1995)$ Similarly, +inell (1995) no es !a &ar icles suc! as now, howe!er, and anyhow end o re&lace e/&lici &!rases suc! as and now let me tell you as o&ic c!angers in 0Iod0$ ?n con ras , Baavi sainen (1995) sees in erjec ions, as !ey become res ric ed o !e oral con e/ , as losing !e e/ ual func ions (e$g$ reader involvemen , urning &oin in &lo , vividness of narra ion, o&ic s!if ) !a !ey !ad in 0Iod0, "!ile con inuing !e s&eaker- and addressee-focusing func ions$ B!e loss of &ar icular discourse markers !as been accoun ed for by bo ! gramma ical c!anges and !e s!if from !e li era e o !e oral mode$ +or ins ance, +leisc!man (1995) a ribu es !e

loss of Eld +renc! si o a larger syn ac ic c!ange, vi#$, !e elimina ion of verb-second and !e evolu ion of SJZ order "i ! obliga ory subjec &ronouns, "!ile +ujii (1991, 1995) argues !a !e develo&men of e/&lici &os &osi ional subjec markers (wa, ga) in 8a&anese, "!ere Eld 8a&anese subjec s "ere generally unmarked, resul s, in ernally, from !e loss of im&lici subjec markers suc! as !onorifics, as "ell as from e/ ernal (language-con ac ) causes$ B!e loss of discourse forms mig! also be a ribu able o a number of o !er causes (see ;rin on 199A)4 o !e form's co-o& a ion as a me rical e/&edien and gradual loss of meaning (as in !e case of I0 gan), o i s s ylis ic s igma i#a ion, &er!a&s because of i s affilia ion "i ! oral discourse (as in !e case of I0 bifel), or o i s overe/ ension of meaning (as in !e case of hw"t , what, "!ic! in addi ion o i s &ro&osi ional uses as an in erroga ive &ronoun, adverb, and adjec ive and i s e/ ual uses as an in erroga ive com&lemen i#er and marker of e/ ual im&lica ion (L"!a !enM), ac@uires e/&ressive uses as a marker of s!ared kno"ledge, sur&rise (what, why), an e/clama ion (what a), and an a en ion-ge er (what ho))$ Des&i e !e c!anges in discourse forms over ime or !eir loss, !ere "ould none !eless seem o be a con inui y of &ragma ic func ions over ime, "i ! !e forms e/&ressing discourse func ions 9 forms "!ic! seem o be in rinsically e&!emeral (see S ein 1985a)9con inually being re&laced7 !is &rocess of 'rene"al* is c!arac eris ic of gramma icali#a ion (%o&&er 1991)$ +or e/am&le, E0 hwset is re&laced by you know, or in i s a en ion-ge ing func ion by y'know what, E0 hwset pa by so, I0 anon by now, and I0 gan by !e collo@uial forms up and, take and, go and$ ?n o !er cases, !ere seems o be a &reserva ion of forms over a long &eriod, as in !e case of !e I0 e&is emic &aren !e icals & gesse, !e sur&rise sense of "!a , or !e e&isode boundary marking pa gelamp hit p"t , then it bifel that , it came to pass that , it happened that, s ill a fea ure of modern, collo@uial narra ive (;rin on 199A)$ :l !oug! S ein (1985b4 651) sugges s !a !e s udy of e/ y&es !as al"ays included an !is orical dimension, s udies of c!anges in discourse or genre !ave focused almos e/clusively on c!anges !a resul from !e s!if from !e oral o !e "ri en medium$ Baking a global vie" of c!ange in e/ y&e, ;iber and +inegan (1989, 1995) !ave e/amined c!anges in a varie y of "ri en and s&eec!-based genres in 0nglis! in res&ec o a number of gramma ical fea ures$ 1!a !ey !ave found is a 'drif * in all genres from fea ures !a can be described as more 'li era e* o ones !a can be c!arac eri#ed as more 'oral,* !a is, o fea ures "!ic! !ey describe as more 'involved* (e$g$ &riva e verbs, firs and second &erson &ronouns, con rac ions, that- dele ion) ra !er !an 'informa ional* (e$g$ nouns, &re&osi ional &!rases, 'long* "ords)7 more 'si ua ion-de&enden * (e$g$ ime and &lace adverbials) ra !er !an 'elabora ed* (e$g$ &ied-&i&ing, wh-rela ives, nominali#a ions)7 and more concre e ra !er !an abs rac (e$g$ &assives, adverbial subordina ors, &as &ar ici&les)$ %o"ever, : kinson (1995), a&&lying !is y&e of analysis o medical researc! "ri ing from 1365 o 1985 in 0nglis!, !as found a clear &rogression o more 'informa ional,* less narra ive, more e/&lici reference, and less over e/&ression of &ersuasion, !a is, !e more li era e norms of academic &rose (a&ar from i s abs rac ness)$ =onfirma ion of !is rend is &rovided by CQrlac! (1995), "!o, in e/amining c!anges in !e genre of cookery books from I0 o !e nine een ! cen ury, finds evidence of a s!if from oral o "ri en radi ions, of a gradual develo&men of generic conven ions, and of !e in roduc ion of social dis inc ions in !e arge ed audience in !e linguis ic, social, and ec!nical as&ec s of !e e/ y&e$ Civen !a !e resul s of genre-s&ecific s udy and cross-genre s udies !ave s!o"n o&&osi e direc ions of c!ange in res&ec o !e oral-"ri en con inuum, i seems clear !a !is area needs muc! fuller s udy$55 Ioreover, !e linguis ic fea ures defining 'oral* and '"ri en* e/ s

need o be unders ood be er !an !ey curren ly are before a diac!ronic s udy of e/ s can come o any cer ain conclusions$ Ene mig! also @ues ion "!e !er !e focus on oral and "ri en fea ures, given !e uncer ain ies surrounding !is o&ic, is !e mos useful one$

4 5onclusion
Some years ago, =lara =alvo issued !e follo"ing c!allenge4 +or over "en y years !e s udy of discourse !as been almos e/clusively concerned "i ! sync!ronie analysis andF$ since "e can no longer resor o !e e/cuse !a discourse s udies are young and imma ure, "e mig! find i necessary very soon o urn our minds o diachronic s udies of discourse as "ell$ (19954 5A) Since !e early 198,s, sc!olars !ave, in fac , been addressing !is c!allenge in a varie y of "ays, and recen ly, !is orical discourse analysis !as begun o ake s!a&e as a dis inc disci&line (see, e$g$ 8ucker 1995)$ %o"ever, i mus be said !a !e field of !is orical discourse analysis, as i s ands oday, consis s of some"!a dis&ara e s rands of s udy$ Ene s rand can be seen as &!ilology em&ered by discourse, !e so-called '(e" )!ilology$* B!a is, i focuses on many of !e concerns of !e &!ilologis 9 on 'mys ery "ords,* inflec ional forms, colloca ions, e/ ual s ruc ures 9 and seeks o unders and !em as e/&onen s of discourse &!enomena suc! as o&ic marking, &ar ici&an racking, given-ne" informa ion, narra ive segmen a ion, e/&ressions of subjec ivi y, and in ernal or e/ ernal evalua ion, as "e unders and !ese &!enomena in con em&orary discourse$ )er!a&s !e mos re"arding of !e ne" &!ilological s udies !ave been !ose reassessing 'mys ery &ar icles* as 'discourse markers$* B!e second s rand can be seen as !is orical linguis ics em&ered by discourse$ B!a is, i involves !e usual ac ivi ies of diac!ronic linguis ics combined "i ! a considera ion of discourse fac ors as sources, causes, or mo iva ions of c!ange$ 1!ile discourse- &ragma ic fac ors can affec many differen kinds of diac!ronic &rocesses, !ey !ave been seen as es&ecially significan in gramma icali#a ion and "ord order c!ange$ =er ain gramma ical s ruc ures !ave also been seen as develo&ing from original discourse s ruc ures, and !e reverse$ B!e !ird and las s rand of !is orical discourse analysis involves !e s udy of !e origin, diac!ronic develo&men , and-or loss of discourse markers, of c!anges in discourse s ruc ures, and of al era ions in e/ y&es over ime$ Ynlike !e firs "o s rands, "!ic! are cross-disci&linary, !is !ird s rand is more ruly inter disci&linary in uni ing discourse analysis "i ! diac!ronic linguis ics7 and &er!a&s re&resen s !e ric!es and mos re"arding as&ec of !e ne" field of !is orical discourse analysis$ 1 B!e c!a& er '%is orical discourse* in van Dijk (1985) is concerned &rimarily "i ! a discourse analysis of !is orical "ri ing$ 5 =om&are historical (linguistic) pragmatics (8acobs and 8ucker 19954 59A), "!ic! combines !e firs and !ird a&&roac!es discussed !ere, !oug! i s!ould be no ed !a !e em&!asis of !e ar icles in !e volume (8ucker 1995) is on !e firs a&&roac!$ 6 ?n !is orical &ragma ics, !e la er direc ion, es&ecially !e !is orical s udy of !e le/icali#a ion of s&eec! ac s and c!anges in illocu ionary ac s, is common (see S ein 1985b4 65,7 8acobs and 8ucker 19954 19955)$

. =om&are pragmatic historical linguistics (8acobs and 8ucker 19954 5)$ B!is a&&roac! overla&s o some e/ en "i ! 'socio!is orical linguis ics,* or !e s udy of !o" social fac ors (e$g$ social class, e !nici y, regional origin, se/, occu&a ion, educa ion) influence linguis ic c!ange$ ?n fac , S ein (1985b) defines socio!is orical linguis ics as !e 'micro-a&&roac!* of !is orical &ragma ics$ ?n in roducing a s&ecial volume on !e o&ic, Komaine and Braugo (19854 5) unders and socio!is orical linguis ics as encom&assing suc! discourse o&ics as genre, o&ic, and oral vs$ li era e and see i as s!aring some of !e same concerns as radi ional &!ilology$ Ene a em& o address a me !odological &roblem of socio!is orical linguis ics 9 !e &roblem of e/ rac ing social informa ion from "ri en e/ s 9 is !e =or&us of 0arly 0nglis! =orres&ondence, "!ere informa ion concerning gender, social s a us, educa ional level, and so on is muc! more readily e/ rac able (see (evalainen and Kaumolin-;runberg 199A)$ 5 +or a defini ion of discourse markers, see ;rin on (199A4 599.,)$ A +rom o !er linguis ic radi ions, one mig! ci e Enodero's (1995) s udy of !e 8a&anese adversa ive conjunc ions demo and dakedo, "!ic! ac@uired e/ ual and e/&ressive func ions in !e si/ een ! and early "en ie ! cen uries, res&ec ively$ ?n !e classical, li erary form of Ialay used un il !e end of !e nine een ! cen ury, !e &ar icle -lah is a foregrounder, !ig!lig! ing !e even , giving i s&ecial &rominence, and announcing i as one in a series of ac ions7 use of !e &assive voice, marked by -nya, isa second means of foregrounding in Ialay (%o&&er 19394 553966)$ 3 ')ro&osi ional-idea ional* deno es referen ial meaning or con en , 'in er&ersonal-e/&ressive* is !e e/&ression of s&eaker a i ude or judgmen and as&ec s of !e social e/c!ange, and ' e/ ual* refers o devices for ac!ieving in ersen en ial connec ions and more global s ruc uring of e/ s (see ;rin on 199A4 6899)$ 8 ?n con ras , :ris ar and Dry (1985) argue !a !e grounding of as&ec ual forms in E0 is ambiguous7 !e &erfec and &rogressive forms are no res ric ed o !e background, nor is !e sim&le &as res ric ed o !e foreground (see also 12rvik 199,)7 grounding is accom&lis!ed !roug! !e use of ak ionsar forms$ 9 ?n a differen vein, S ein (1985a, 1983), considering &ersonal endings on verbs, argues !a !e varian !ird &erson endings -th and -s in 0Iod0 are originally dis inguis!ed s ylis ically (-th being used in !e '!ig!er* "ri en regis er and elabora ed &rose s yle) and la er come o !ave !e erogeneous discourse func ions7 -s is more common in !e &eak, and - ! marks s ruc ural uni s, differen narra ive modes, c!arac eri#a ion, or in ensi y$ 1, +or discussions of gramma icali#a ion, see, for e/am&le, >e!mann (1985), %o&&er (1991), %o&&er and Braugo (1996), or ;rin on (199A4 5,9A,)$ 11 Similarly, !e gramma icali#a ion of !e demons ra ive se as a defini e ar icle in s&oken +innis! (see >aury 1995) also involves &ragma ic fac ors$ Since !e demons ra ive marks a discourse accessible referen , i is reanaly#ed as a marker of iden ifiabili y in general7 !is c!ange involves &ragma ic s reng !ening (bu no subjec ifica ion7 see belo")$ 15 Er as i !as been re"orded by +aarlund, ec!oing ano !er of CivQn's "ell-kno"n &!rases4 ' oday's syn a/ may be !e &roduc of yes erday's discourse &ragma ics* (19894 3,)$

16 : fur !er as&ec of !is a&&roac! 9 "!ic! "ill no be &ursued !ere 9 is !e recons ruc ion of discourse s ruc ures o &ro olanguages$ 1. Iore recen ly, Braugo (1995b4 .398) !as come o @ues ion !e unilinear course of develo&men from &ro&osi ional o e/ ual o in er&ersonal, seeing gramma icali#a ion o&era ing along several 'correla ed diac!ronic con inua,* !oug! s!e s ill considers !e c!ange from &ro&osi ional func ion o discourse func ion 9 ' !e endency o recrui le/ical (&ro&osi ional) ma erial for &ur&oses of crea ing e/ and indica ing a i udes in discourse si ua ions* 9 as cen ral$ 15 1orking "i ! a some"!a differen frame"ork, +ujii (1991, 1995) e/amines !e develo&men of !e 8a&anese discourse-subjec markers wa and ga. wa c!anges from a marker of con ras and local em&!asis o a marker of !eme-s aging7 ga c!anges from an associa ive marker o a nomina ive marker, "!ile no becomes more fully associa ive$ B!e markers "o and ni c!ange from case markers o conjunc ives$ 1A ?n a more de ailed e/amina ion of !e !is ory of "ell, 8ucker (1993) argues, !o"ever, !a !e earlies form in E0 ("ella, "el la) is used in er&ersonally as an a en ion-ge er7 in I0, "ell begins o be used e/ ually as a frame marker in roducing direc re&or ed s&eec!, and in 0arly Iodern and Iodern 0nglis!, i again develo&s in er&ersonal uses as a face- !rea mi iga or and @ualifier$ 13 Braugo (1995b, for !coming) @ues ions "!e !er !e develo&men of discourse markers mig! be be er unders ood as 'le/icali#a ion,* '&ragma icali#a ion,* or '&os gramma icali#a ion,* bu concludes !a i mos closely resembles !e &rocess of gramma icali#a ion$ 18 Some discourse markers may in fac undergo &!onological reduc ion, suc! as 'od woot , 'oddot(h) (;rin on 199A) or indeed, in fact-ndid, nf[k , f[k- (see Braugo 1995a), mor&!ological bonding, or o !er y&es of reduc ion, suc! as !e elli&sis of Gis concerned, goesH in !e as far as cons ruc ion (Braugo for !coming)$ 19 ? can be argued fur !er !a !e seman ic s!if s undergone by all of !ese forms in !e &rocess of gramma icali#a ion involve !e conven ionali#a ion of con e/ ual im&lica ures, as, for e/am&le, !e meaning of salience-im&or ance- se@uen iali y of anon is an im&lica ure of !e "ord's sense of suddenness or urgency (see fur !er ;rin on 199A)$ 5, S!e considers methinks as a 'sen ence adverbial,* !oug! !e func ions and c!arac eris ics of !e form !a s!e iden ifies are com&arable o !ose of discourse markers$ 51 %o"ever, then &reserves i s foregrounding func ion in modern oral narra ives$ 55 +or e/am&le, Baavis sainen (199.) s!o"s !a !e develo&men of medical "ri ing is more com&le/ !an ini ially su&&osed, since even from !e beginning of suc! "ri ing in 0nglis!, !ere e/is differen sub y&es !a vary in !e e/&ression of involvemen (e$g$ firs -second &erson &ronouns, im&era ives) or objec ivi y (e$g$ &assive), audience, and e/ ual form$ : large-scale, cor&us-based !is orical s udy of medical "ri ing is curren ly being under aken (see Baavis sainen and )a! a 1993)$

RE6EREN5ES

:kimo o, Iinoji (5,,,)$ /he grammaticali(ation of the !erb 0pray1 $ ?n +isc!er, Kosenbac!, and S ein (5,,,), (&&$ A3 8.)$ :ndersen, %enning (ed$), (1995)$ Historical 2inguistics, 34456 7elected +apers from the 33th &nternational 8onference on Historical 2inguistics, 39:;< August, 3445 ( 8urrent &ssues in 2inguistic /heory, 3;= )$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ :ndersen, %enning and Noerner, Nonrad (eds), (199,)$ Historical 2inguistics, 34>?. +apers from the >th &nternational 8onference on Historical 2inguistics (>6 &8H2) (2ille, 53 August-= 7eptember, 34>?) ( 8urrent &ssues in 2inguistic /heory, 99 )$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ :ris ar, :n !ony and Dry, %elen (1985)$ /he origin of backgrounding tenses in @nglish $ ?n Nevin Bui e, Kobinson Sc!neider, and Kober =!ame #ky (eds), +apers from the @ighteenth Aegional #eeting of the 8hicago 2inguistic 7ociety (&&$ 1 16)$ =!icago4 =!icago >inguis ic Socie y $ : kinson, D"ig! (1995$ /he e!olution of medical research writing from 3?5B:34>B. the case of the @dinburgh #edical Cournal $ Applied 2inguistics , (16) , 663 3.$ ;e en, :nne (1995)$ 7entence connection as an eDpression of medie!al principles of representation $ ?n Cerri sen and S ein (1995), (&&$ 153 3.)$ ;iber, Douglas and +inegan, 0d"ard (1989)$ Drift and the e!olution of @nglish style. a history of three genres , 2anguage , (A5) , .83 513$ ;iber, Douglas and +inegan, 0d"ard (1995)$ /he linguistic e!olution of fi!e written and speech-based @nglish genres from the 3?th to the ;<th centuries $ ?n Kissanen e al$ (1995), (&&$ A88 3,.)$ ;lake, (orman +$ (1995)$ Ehy and what in 7hakespeare $ ?n Bos!iyuki Bakamiya and Kic!ard ;eadle (eds), 8haucer to 7hakespeare. @ssays in Honour of 7hinsuke Ando (&&$ 139 96)$ =ambrige4 D$ S$ ;re"er $ ;olkes ein, :$ Iac! el and van de Crif , Iic!el (199.)$ +articipant trackin $ ?n >a in discourse$ ?n %erman (199.), (&&$ 586 6,5)$ ;rin on, >aurel 8$ (1995)$ /he historical present in 8harlotte Fronte's no!els. some discourse functions $ 7tyle , (5) , 551 ..$ ;rin on, >aurel 8$ (1995)$ +ragmatic markers in a diachronic perspecti!e $ ?n 8ocelyn :!lers, >eela ;ilmes, 8os!ua S$ Cuen er, ;arbara : Naiser, and 8u (amkung (eds), +roceedings of the /wenty-first Annual #eeting of the Ferkeley 2inguistics 7ociety (&&$ 633 88)$ ;erkeley4 ;erkeley >inguis ics Socie y $ ;rin on, >aurel 8$ (199A)$ +ragmatic #arkers in @nglish. 'rammaticali(ation and Discourse Gunctions ( /opics in @nglish 2inguistics, 34 )$ ;erlin and (e" <ork4 Iou on de Cruy er $ ;ro"n, Cillian and <ule, Ceorge (1986)$ Discourse Analysis ( 8ambridge /eDtbooks in 2inguistics )$ =ambridge4 =ambridge Yniversi y )ress $ ;urridge, Na e (1995)$ @!olumeence of grammaticali(atio $ ?n +ennsyl!ania 'erman $ ?n :ndersen (1995), (&&$ 59 35)$ =alvo, =lara (1995$ +ronouns of address and social negotiation in As Hou 2ike &t $ 2anguage and 2iterature. Cournal of the +oetics and 2inguistics Association , (1) , 5 53$ =arey, Na !leen (199.)$ /he grammaticali(ation of the perfec $ ?n I@. an account based on pragmatics and metaphor $ ?n )agliuca (199.), (&&$ 1,6 13)$ 0nkvis , (ils 0rik (1935)$ Ild @nglish ad!erbial pJ - an action marker Keuphilologische #itteilungen , (36) , 9, A$ 0nkvis , (ils 0rik (198A)$ #ore about the teDtual functions of the Ild @nglish ad!erbial pa $ ?n Die er Nas ovsky and :leksander S#"edek (eds), 2inguistics across Historical and 'eographical Foundaries. &n Honour of Cacelt Gisiak on the Iccasion of his Giftieth Firthday (Brends in >inguis ics, S udies and Ionogra&!s, 65), (Jol$ 1, &&$ 6,1 9)$ ;erlin, (e" <ork and :ms erdam4 Iou on de Cruy er $

0nkvis , (ils 0rik and 12rvik, ;ri a (1983)$ Ild @nglish pa, temporal chains, and narrati!e structure $ ?n :nna Ciacalone Kama , Enofrio =arruba, and Ciuliano ;ernini (eds), +apers from the ?th &nternational 8onference on Historical 2inguistics (8urrent &ssues in 2inguistic /heory, =>) , (&&$ 551 63)$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ 0&s ein, Kic!ard (199.)$ /he de!elopment of the definite article $ ?n +renc!$ ?n )agliuca (199.), (&&$ A6 8,)$ 0&s ein, Kic!ard (1995)$ /he later stage $ ?n the de!elopment of the definite article. e!olumeence from Grench $ ?n :ndersen (1995), (&&$ 159 35)$ +aarlund, 8an Berje (1985)$ +ragmatics in diachronic syntaD $ 7tudies in 2anguage , (9) , 6A6 96$ +aarlund, 8an Berje (1989)$ +ragmatics and syntactic change $ ?n >eiv 0gil ;reivik and 0rns %2kon 8a!r (eds), 2anguage 8hange. 8ontributions to the 7tudy of its 8ause (Brends in >inguis ics, S udies and Ionogra&!s, .6), (&&$ 31 11.)$ ;erlin and (e" <ork4 Iou on de Cruy er $ +ern\cu e7nde#, +rancisco, +us er, Iiguel, and =alvo, 8uan 8os] (eds), (199.)$ @nglish Historical 2inguistics. +apers from the ?th &nternational 8onference on @nglish Historical 2inguistics, Lalencia, ;;:;9 7eptember, 344; ( 8urrent &ssues in 2inguistic /heory, 335 )$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ +inell, :nne (1989)$ Eell now and then $ Cournal of +ragmatics , (16) , A56 A$ +inell, :nne (1995)$ /he repertoire of topic changer $ ?n personal, intimate letters. a diachronic study of Isborne and Eoolf $ ?n Kissanen e al$ (1995), (&&$ 35, 65)$ +isc!er, :ndreas (1998)$ #arry. from religious in!ocation to discourse marker $ ?n Kaimund ;orgmeier, %erber Crabes, and :ndreas %$ 8ucker (eds), Anglistentag 344? 'iessen. +roceedings (&&$ 65 .A)$ Brier4 1issensc!af lic!er Jerlag $ +isc!er, Elga, Kosenbac!, :ne e, and S ein, Die er (eds), (5,,,)$ +athways of 8hange. 'rammaticali(ation in @nglish ( 7tudies in 2anguage 8ompanion 7eries, B5 )$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ +leisc!man, Su#anne (1985)$ Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in narrati!e. toward a theory of grounding $ 2inguistics , (5) , 851 85$ +leisc!man, Su#anne (198A)$ @!aluation in narrati!e. the present tense in medie!al Mperformed stories $ Hale Grench 7tudies , (3,) , 199 551$ +leisc!man, Su#anne (199,)$ +hilology, linguistics, and the discourse of the medie!al teDt $ 7peculum , (A5) , 19 63$ +leisc!man, Su#anne (1995)$ Discourse and diachrony. the rise and fall of Ild Grench si $ ?n Cerri sen and S ein (1995), &&$ .66 36$ +ludernik, Ionica (1995)$ #@ po and other narrati!e discourse markers $ ?n 8ucker (1995), (&&$ 659 95)$ +ludernik, Ionica (199A)$ /owards a MKaturalN Karratology $ >ondon and (e" <ork4 Kou ledge $ +ries, Ydo (1986)$ Diachronie teDtlinguistics $ ?n S!iro %a ori and Na#uko ?noue (eds), +roceedings of the O&&&th &nternational 8ongress of 2inguists, August ;4-7eptember =, 34>; (&&$ 1,16 15)$ Bokyo4 Bokyo )ress $ +ries, Ydo (1996)$ /owards a description of teDt deiDis in Ild @nglish $ ?n Nlaus K$ Crinda and =laus-Die er 1e #el (eds), Anglo-7aDonica. Gestschrift fr Hans 7chabram (um 9B6 'eburtstag (&&$ 553 .,)$ Iunic!4 +ink $ +ries, Ydo (199.)$ /eDt deiDi $ ?n 0arly Iodern 0nglis!$ ?n Nas ovsky (199.), (&&$ 111 58)$ +ujii, (oriko (1991)$ Historical Discourse Analysis. 'rammatical 7ubPect in Capanese ( Discourse +erspecti!es on 'rammar, 5 )$ ;erlin and (e" <ork4 Iou on $ +ujii, (oriko (1995)$ 8hang $ ?n subPect marking in Capanese $ ?n Cerri sen and S ein (1995), (&&$ 553 96)$

Cerri sen, Iarinel and S ein, Die er (eds), (1995)$ &nternal and @Dternal Gactors in 7yntactic 8hange ( /rends in 2inguistics, 7tudies and #onographs, 93 )$ ;erlin and (e" <ork4 Iou on de Cruy er $ Ciacalone Kama , :nna (199,)$ Discourse functions and syntactic change $ ?n :ndersen and Noerner (199,), (&&$ 135 9,)$ CivDn, Balmy (1939a)$ Grom discourse to syntaD. grammar as a processing strategy $ ?n CivDn (1939b), (&&$ 81 115)$ CivDn, Balmy (ed$), (1939b)$ 7yntaD and 7emantics, Lol6 3;. Discourse and 7yntaD $ (e" <ork4 :cademic )ress $ CQrlac!, Ianfred (1995)$ /eDt-types and language history. the cookery recipe $ ?n Kissanen e al$ (1995), (&&$ 36A A1)$ %erman, 8Dsef (ed$), (199.)$ 2inguistic 7tudies in 2atin. 7elected +apers from the 9th &nternational 8ollo%uium on 2atin 2inguistics (Fudapest, ;5:;? #arch, 3443) ( 7tudies in 2anguage 8ompanion 7eries, ;> )$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ %o&e, 8ona !an (199.)$ /he use of thou and you $ ?n @arly #odern spoken @nglish. e!olumeence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records $ ?n Nas ovsky (199.), (&&$ 1.1 51)$ %o&&er, )aul 8$ (1939)$ Aspect and foregroundin $ ?n discourse $ ?n CivDn (1939b), (&&$ 516 .1)$ %o&&er, )aul 8$ (1991)$ In some principles of grammatici(ation $ ?n Braugo and %eine (1991), (&&$ 13 65)$ %o&&er, )aul 8$ (1995)$ A discourse perspecti!e on syntactic change. teDt- building strategies in @arly 'ermanic $ ?n 0dgar =$ )olom] and 1erner 1in er (eds), Aeconstructing 2anguages and 8ultures (Brends in >inguis ics, S udies and Ionogra&!s, 58), (&&$ 513 68)$ ;erlin and (e" <ork4 Iou on de Cruy er $ %o&&er, )aul 8$ and Braugo , 0li#abe ! =loss (1996)$ 'rammaticali(ation (8ambridge /eDtbooks in 2inguistics) $ =ambridge4 =ambridge Yniversi y )ress $ %Sllen, 1erner (1995)$ A close reading of Eilliam 8aDton's Dialogues. MQ to lerne shortly frenssh and englyssh $ ?n 8ucker (1995), (&&$ 99 15.)$ 8acobs, :ndreas and 8ucker, :ndreas %$ (1995)$ /he historical perspecti! $ ?n pragmatics $ ?n 8ucker (1995), (&&$ 6 66)$ 8ucker, :ndreas %$ (199.)$ /he feasibility of historical pragmatics $ Cournal of +ragmatics , (55) , 566 A$ 8ucker, :ndreas %$ (ed$), 1995$ Historical +ragmatics. +ragmatic De!elopments in the History of @nglish ( +ragmatics and Feyond, Kew 7eries, 5B )$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ 8ucker, :ndreas %$ (1993)$ /he discourse marker well in the history of @nglish $ @nglish 2anguage and 2inguistics , (1) , 91 11,$ Nas ovsky, Die er (ed$), (199.)$ 7tudies in @arly #odem @nglish ( /opics in @nglish 2inguistics, 35 )$ ;erlin and (e" <ork4 Iou on de Cruy er $ Nim, Baijin (1995)$ /he +article pa in the Eest-7aDon 'ospels. A Discourse-le!el Analysis ( @uropean Rni!ersity 7tudies, 7eries O&L, Anglo-7aDon 2anguage and 2iterature, ;=4 )$ ;ern4 )e er >ang $ Nonig, 0kke!ard (1995)$ Grom discourse to syntaD. the case of concessi!e conditionals $ ?n Kosemarie, Bracy (ed$), Eho 8limbs the 'rammar-/ree (&&$ .56 66)$ Bubingen4 Ia/ (iemeyer $ Nroon, =aroline (1995)$ Discourse +articles in 2atin. A 7tudy ofnam, enim, autem, !ero, and at ( Amsterdam 7tudies in 8lassical +hilology, = )$ :ms erdam4 8$=$ Cieben $ Nryk-Nas ovsky, ;arbara (1993)$ Grom temporal ad!erbs to discourse particles. an instance of cross-linguistic grammaticali(ation ?n Ber u (evalainen and >eena Na!las-Barkka (eds),

/o @Dplain the +resent. 7tudies in the 8hanging @nglish 2anguage in Honour of #atti Aissanen (Iemoires de la Socie e (eo&!ilologi@ue de %elsinki, 55), (&&$ 619 58)$ %elsinki4 Socie e (eo&!ilologi@ue $ >aury, Ki va (1995)$ In the grammatici(ation of the definite article 7 $ ?n s&oken +innis!$ ?n :ndersen (1995), (&&$ 569 5,)$ >e!mann, =!ris ian (1985)$ 'rammaticali(ation. synchronic !ariation and diachronic change $ 2ingual e stile , (5) , 6,6 18$ >enker, Yrsula (5,,,)$ 7oplice and witodlice. discourse marker $ ?n Eld 0nglis!$ ?n +isc!er, Kosenbac!, and S ein (5,,,), (&&$ 559 5.9)$ >evinson S e&!en, =$ (1986)$ +ragmatics ( 8ambridge /eDtbooks in 2inguistics )$ =ambridge4 =ambridge Yniversi y )ress $ >ongacre, Kober 0$ (193A)$ #ystery particles and affiDes $ ?n Salikoko S$ Iuf"ene, =arol :$ 1alker, and Sanford ;$ S eever (eds), +apers from the /welfth Aegional #eeting of the 8hicago 2inguistic 7ociety (&&$ .A8 35)$ =!icago4 =!icago >inguis ic Socie y $ (evalainen, Berr u and Kaumolin-;runberg, %elena (eds), (199A)$ 7ociolinguistics and 2anguage History. 7tudies Fased on the 8orpus of @arly @nglish 8orrespondence $ :ms erdam4 Kodo&i $ Eng, 1al er (198.)$ Irality, literacy, and medie!al teDtuali(ation $ Kew 2iterary History , (1A) (1), 1 15$ Enodero (oriko, Ekada (1995)$ Diachronic analysis of Capanese discourse markers $ ?n 8ucker (1995), (&&$ 696 .63)$ )agliuca, 1illiam (ed$), (199.)$ +erspecti!es on 'rammaticali(ation ( 8urrent &ssues in 2inguistic /heory, 3<4 )$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ )alander-=ollin, Iinna (199A)$ /he rise and fall of #@/H&KS7 $ ?n (evalainen and Kaumolin-;runberg (199A), (&&$ 161 .9)$ )alander-=ollin, Iinna (1993)$ A medie!al case of grammaticali(ation, methinks $ ?n Ia i Kissanen, Ierja Ny o, and Nirsi %eikkonen (eds), 'rammaticali(ation at Eork. 7tudies of 2ong-term De!elopments in @nglish (Bo&ics in 0nglis! >inguis ics, 5.), (&&$ 631 .,6)$ ;erlin and (e" <ork4 Iou on de Cruy er $ Kic!ardson, )e er (1991)$ /ense, discourse, style. the historical present in M7ir 'awain and the 'reen SnightN $ Keuphilologische #itteilungen , (95) , 6.6 .9$ Kic!ardson, )e er (199.)$ &mperfecti!e aspect and episode structure in Feowulf $ Cournal of @nglish and 'ermanic +hilology , (96) , 616 55$ Kic!ardson, )e er (1995)$ /ense, structure, and reception in +orsteins pdttr stangarhpPggs $ Arki! for nordisk filologi , (11,) , .1 55$ Kickford, 8o!n K$, 1aso", B!omas :$, Iendo#a-Den on, (orma, and 0s&ino#a, 8uli (1995)$ 7yntactic !ariation and change in progress. loss of the !erbal coda in topic-restricting as far as constructions $ 2anguage , (31) , 1,5 61$ Kissanen, Ia i, ?!alainen, Essi, (evalainen, Ber u, and Baavi sainen, ?rma (eds), (1995)$ History of @nglishes. Kew #ethods and &nterpretations in Historical 2inguistics ( /opics in @nglish 2inguistics, 3< )$ ;erlin and (e" <ork4 Iou on de Cruy er $ Kisselada, Kodie (199.)$ #odo and sane, or what to do with particle $ ?n >a in discourse$ ?n %erman (199.), (&&$ 619 .6)$ Komaine, Su#anne and Braugo , 0li#abe ! Closs (1985)$ +reface $ &n special !olume of Golia 2inguistica Historica (con aining &a&ers from !e 1orks!o& on Socio-!is orical >inguis ics, )o#na!, :ug$ 5,, 1986), (A) , 5 A$ Sc!iffrin, Debora! (1983)$ Discourse #arkers ( 7tudies in &nteractional 7ociolinguistics, B )$ =ambridge4 =ambridge Yniversi y )ress $ Sc!iffrin, Debora! (199.)$ Approaches to Discourse =ambridge, I:4 ;lack"ell $

Sc!"en er, Sco :$ and Braugo , 0li#abe ! =loss (1995)$ /he semantic and pragmatic de!elopment of substituti!e compleD preposition $ ?n 0nglis!$ ?n 8ucker (1995), (&&$ 5.6 36)$ Sell, Koger D$ (1985)$ +oliteness in 8haucer. suggestions towards a methodology for pragmatic stylistics , 7tudia Keophilologica , (53) , 135 85$ Sell, Koger D$ (199.)$ +ostdisciplinary philology. culturally relati!istic pragmatics $ ?n +ernande# e al$ (199.) (&&$ 59 6A)$ S ein, Die er (1985a)$ Discourse markers in @arly #odern @nglish $ ?n Koger 0a on, Elga +isc!er, 1illem Noo&man, and +rederike van der >eek (eds), +apers from the =th &nternational 8onference on @nglish Historical 2inguistics (8urrent &ssues ir 2inguistic /heory, =3) , (&&$ 586 6,5)$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ S ein, Die er (1985b)$ +erspecti!es on historical pragmatics $ Golia 2inguistica Historica , (A) , 6.3 55$ S ein, Die er (1983)$ At the crossroads of philology, linguistics and semiotics. notes on the replacement of th by s in the third person singular in @nglish $ @nglish 7tudies , (A8) , .,A 61$ S ubbs, Iic!ael (1986)$ Discourse Analysis. /he 7ociolinguistic Analysis of Katural 2anguage ( 2anguage in 7ociety, = )$ =!icago4 Yniversi y of =!icago )ress $ Baavi sainen, ?rma (199.)$ In the e!olution of scientific writings from 35?B to 39?B. repertoire of emoti!e features $ ?n +ernande# e al$ (199.), (&&$ 659 .5)$ Baavi sainen, ?rma (1995)$ &nterPections in @arly #odern @nglish. from imitation of spoken to con!entions of written language $ &n Cucker (1995), (&&$ .69 A5) Baavi sainen, ?rma and )a! a, )aivi (1993)$ /he 8orpus of @arly @nglish #edical Eriting $ &8A#@ Cournal , (51) , 31 8$ Babor, 1!i ney and Braugo , 0li#abe ! =loss (1998)$ 7tructural scope eDpansion and grammaticali(ation $ ?n :nna Ciacalone Kama and )aul 8$ %o&&er (eds), /he 2imits of 'rammaticali(ation (By&ological S udies in >anguage, 63), (&&$ 559 35)$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ Braugo , 0li#abe ! =loss (1985)$ Grom propositional to teDtual and eDpressi!e meanings. some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticali(ation $ ?n 1infred )$ >e!mann and <akov, Ialkiel (eds), +erspecti!es on Historical 2inguistics (&&$ 5.5 31)$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ Braugo , 0li#abe ! Closs (1995a)$ /he role of the de!elopment of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticali(ation $ +aper presented at the 3;th &nternational 8onference on Historical 2inguistics $ Ianc!es er, 0ngland$ Braugo , 0li#abe ! Closs (1995b)$ 7ubPectification in grammaticali(ation $ ?n Die er S ein and Susan 1rig! (eds), 7ubPecti!ity and 7ubPecti!isation. 2inguistic +erspecti!es (&&$ 61 5.)$ =ambridge4 =ambridge Yniversi y )ress $ Braugo , 0li#abe ! =loss (for !coming)$ 8onstructions in grammaticali(ation $ ?n ;rian 8ose&! and Kic!ard 8anda (eds), /he Handbook of Historical 2inguistics E/ford and Iaiden, I:4 ;lack"ell $ Braugo 0li#abe ! =loss and %eine, ;ernd (eds), (1991)$ Approaches to 'rammaticali(ation, Lol6 &. Gocus on /heoretical and #ethodological &ssues ( /ypological 7tudies in 2anguage, 34 )$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ Braugo , 0li#abe ! =loss and Nonig, 0kke!ard (1991)$ /he semantics-pragmatics of grammaticali(ation re!isite $ ?n Braugo and %eine (1991), (&&$ 189 518)$ van Dijk, Beun :$ (ed$), (1985)$ Handbook of Discourse Analysis $ . vols$ >ondon4 :cademic )ress $ Jir anen, Bu ja (1995)$ /hen & saw to anti%ue heddesN. discourse strategie $ ?n 0arly Iodern 0nglis! ravelogues$ ?n 8ucker (1995), (&&$ .99 516)$ 1ales, Na ie (1995)$ Hour a!erage generalisations. a case stud $ ?n !is orical &ragma ics$ ?n 8ucker (1995), (&&$ 6,9 58)$

1arvik, ;ri a (199,)$ In the history of grounding markers in @nglish narrati!e. style or typology ?n :ndersen and Noerner (199,), (&&$ 561 .5)$ 1arvik, ;ri a (1995a)$ /he ambiguous ad!erbial con Punctions pa and ponn $ ?n Iiddle 0nglis!4 a discourse-&ragma ic s udy of !en and "!en in early 0nglis! sain s' lives$ ?n 8ucker (1995), (&&$ 6.5 53)$ 1arvik, ;ri a (1995b)$ +eak marking in Ild @nglish narrati!e $ ?n ;ri a, 1arvik, SannaNaisa, Banskanen, and Kis o, %il unen (eds), Irgani(ation in Discourse6 +roceedings from the /urku 8onference (:nglicana Burkuensia, 1.), (&&$ 5.9 58)$ Burku4 Yniversi y of Burku $ 1iegand, (ancy (1985)$ Grom discourse to syntaD. for in early @nglish causal clauses $ ?n :nders :!l@vis (ed$), +apers from the Bth &nternational 8onference on Historical 2inguistics (=urren ?ssues in >inguis ic B!eory, 51), (&&$ 685 96)$ :ms erdam and )!iladel&!ia4 8o!n ;enjamins $ 1iegand, (ancy (1983)$ 8ausal 8onnecti!es in the @arly History of @nglish. a 7tudy in Diachronic 7yntaD $ Yn&ublis!ed )!D disser a ion, S anford Yniversi y$ 1ilbur, Berence %$ (1988)$ 7entence connecti!es in ancient 'ermanic teDts $ ?n Daniel C$ =alder and B$ =raig =!ris ie (eds), 'ermania. 8omparati!e 7tudies in the Ild 'ermanic 2anguages and 2iteratures (&&$ 85 95)$ 1olfeboro, (%4 D$ S$ ;re"er $ 1rig! , Susan (1989)$ Discourse, style and the rise of periphrastic DI in @nglish $ Golia 2inguistica Historica , (1,) , 31 91$

5ite t%is article

;K?(BE(, >:YK0> 8$ ^%is orical Discourse :nalysis$^ /he Handbook of Discourse Analysis$ Sc!iffrin, Debora!, Debora! Bannen and %eidi 0$ %amil on (eds)$ ;lack"ell )ublis!ing, 5,,6$ ;lack"ell Keference Enline$ ,6 Iarc! 5,,3 O! &4--"""$black"ellreference$com-subscriber- ocnodeV id_g938,A615,59A8`c!unk`g938,A615,59A88T