Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T19:10:32.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The discourse marker well in the history of English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Andreas H. Jucker
Andreas H. Jucker
Affiliation:
Justus Liebig University GiessenFB 10, AnglistikOtto-Behaghel-Str. 1035394 Giessen, Germanyandreas.jucker@anglistik.uni-giessen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The discourse marker well has four distinct uses in Modern English: as a frame it introduces a new topic or prefaces direct reported speech; as a qualifier it prefaces a reply which is only a partial answer to a question; as a face-threat mitigator it prefaces a disagreement; and as a pause filler it bridges interactional silence.

In Old English well was used on an interpersonal level as an emphatic attention-getting device (similar to Old English hwæt ‘listen’, ‘behold’, or ‘what’). In Middle English, well always functioned as a frame on a textual level. In Early Modern English, and particularly in the plays by Shakespeare, the uses of well diversified considerably and adopted interpersonal uses again.

Type
Articles
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , May 1997 , pp. 91 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sources

Boethius, King Alfred's Old English version ofBoethius De consolatione philosophiae, ed. Sedgefield, John. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. Translation taken from the edition by Samuel Fox. London: H. G. Bohn, 1864.Google Scholar
Chaucer, The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd edn, ed. Benson, Larry D.. Electronic edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
HC Helsinki corpus of English texts. Published on CD-ROM by the International Computer Archives of Modern English (ICAME). Original text labels and year of publication of text are also indicated.Google Scholar
Homilies, Æfric's Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat, Walter W.. (Early English Text Society O.S. 76.) London: Trubner, 1881.Google Scholar
LLC02 London-Lund Corpus, text sample 2, published on CD-ROM by the International Computer Archives of Modern English (ICAME).Google Scholar

References

Baynham, M. (1996). Direct speech: what's it doing in non-narrative discourse? Journal of Pragmatics 25: 61–81.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (1990). Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 629–47.Google Scholar
Blake, N. F. (1992). Why and what in Shakespeare. In Takamiya, T. & Beadle, R. (eds.), Chaucer to Shakespeare: essays in honour of Shinsuke Ando. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer. 179–93.Google Scholar
Blake, N. F. (1992–3). Shakespeare and discourse. Stylistica 2/3: 81–90.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1988). ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In Kempson, R. M. (ed.), Mental representations: the interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 183–95.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. (1990a). The development of discourse markers in English. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical linguistics and philology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 45–71.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. (1990b). The stylistic function of ME gan reconsidered. In Adamson, S. M., Law, V., Vincent, N., & Wright, S. (eds.), Papers from the fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 31–53.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. (1995). Pragmatic markers in a diachronic perspective. In Ahlers, J., Bilmes, L., Guenter, J. S., Kaiser, B. A., & Namkung, J.(eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 17–20, 1995, general session and parasession on historical issues in sociolinguistics / Social issues in historical linguistics. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 377–88.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. (1984). ‘Well’ in dialogue games: a discourse analysis of the interjection ‘well’ in idealized conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R.J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66: 764–805.Google Scholar
Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic expressions in English: a study of you know, you see and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erman, B. (1992). Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction. Language Variation and Change 4: 217–34.Google Scholar
Finell, A. (1989). Well now and then. (squib) Journal of Pragmatics 13: 653–6.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, J. (1995). The language of gender and a textual problem in Aphra Behn's The Rover. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 96: 283–93.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1988[1993]). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38.1–4: 19–33.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–95.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167–90.Google Scholar
Fuami, S. (1995). Well as a discourse marker in The Merry Wives of Windsor. Ohtani Women's College Studies in English Language and Literature 22: 23–47.Google Scholar
Greasley, P. (1994). An investigation into the use of the particle well: commentaries on a game of snooker. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 477–94.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in Society 15: 1–22.Google Scholar
James, A. R. (1983). Well in reporting clauses: meaning and form of a ‘lexical filler’. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 8: 33–40.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker well: a relevance theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19.5: 435–52.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). Questionable answers and answerable questions. In Kachru, B. B., Lees, R. B., Malkiel, Y., Pietrangeli, A., & Saporta, S. (eds.), Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 453–67.Google Scholar
Leisi, E. (1987). Ha, Schurke! Falsche und richtige Shakespeare-Übersetzungen. Neue Zürcher Zeitung 13/14 06 1987.Google Scholar
Leisi, E. (1995). Streiflichter. Unzeitgemäße Essays zu Kultur, Sprache und Literatur. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Murray, D. (1979). Well. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 727–32.Google Scholar
Owen, M. (1981). Conversational units and the use of ‘well…’. In Werth, P. (ed.), Conversation and discourse. London: Croom Helm. 99–116.Google Scholar
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges: a study of language use in social interaction. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1985). Conversational coherence: the role of ‘well’. Language 61: 640–67.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1986). Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 41–66.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schourup, L. C. (1982). Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Sprott, R. A. (1992). Children's use of discourse markers in disputes: form–function relations and discourse in child language. Discourse Processes 15: 422–39.Google Scholar
Stein, D. (1985). Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Koopman, W., & van der Leek, F. (eds.), Papers from the fourth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 283–302.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. (1980). Well in conversation. In Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. 167–77.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. (1995). Interjections in Early Modern English: from imitation of spoken to conventions of written language. In Jucker, A. H. (ed.), Historical pragmatics: pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 439–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic–pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 245–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995a). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, D. & Wright, S. (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995b). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper given at twelfth International Conference on Historical Linguistics,Manchester,August 1995.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1986). Relevance in conversational moves: a reappraisal of ‘well’. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 19: 37–59.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1988[1993]). A relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: the case of actually, really and basically. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38: 235–60.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1989). Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’. Native speakers' perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 203–37.Google Scholar