Chapter 3 explores the characteristics of pragmatic markers and focuses on both their function during a particular period and their development over time. Diachronically, pragmatic markers develop from content words, phrases, or clauses that gradually acquire a distinctive syntactic form and discourse-pragmatic functions and follow various pathways, from adverb > conjunction > pragmatic marker, from sentence-internal adverb > sentential adverb > pragmatic marker, from main clause > ambiguous clause > parenthetical, from adverbial or imperative clause > pragmatic marker. A number of examples of such pathways are provided, where it is shown that the historical data may be messy and require nuanced interpretation. For clausal pragmatic markers, the “matrix clause hypothesis” is critically examined. The process of language change that best accounts for the development of pragmatic markers, including lexicalization, pragmaticalization, grammaticalization, and cooptation, is still a matter of debate, though the majority view is that if “grammar” is broadly understood, pragmatic markers are best seen as undergoing grammaticalization (decategorialization, desemanticization).

The electronics revolution was assumed to help democratization around the world. Enormous changes were expected to come about, opening up societies as people gained access to more and more information. The electronics revolution was supposed to open the world and open minds and societies around the world. In this sense, it was assumed that political plasticity would increase through electronic communications. However, as discussed in this chapter, the impact of the electronics revolution has been mixed and far more complex. First, dictators have learned to limit and censor electronic communications within their own borders (e.g., the Great Firewall of China). Second, dictatorships such as Russia and China have used electronic communications to influence events in countries around the world, working to strengthen dictatorships and weaken democracies. Third, the masses in democracies do not have the critical thinking skills needed to avoid being influenced by conspiracy theories and false information, spread by authoritarian strongmen (such as Donald Trump) and their supporters. Consequently, political plasticity has not been changed much through the electronic revolution. For example, mass participation in decision-making has not happened.

Chapter 3 examines how aid creates conflicts and entrenches existing racialised inequalities within the civil society sector. I show that funding injections shake Moroccan civil society by producing three kinds of organisational subjectivities. The first group are the newcomers, which decide to accept donors’ funding, while enacting sense-making strategies to justify their work as not explicitly in support of border security policies. The second group are the radicals: organisations which consider aid money as an instrument of border externalisation, and therefore decide to reject it or distance themselves from it. The last group of civil society organisations are those remaining on the doorstep. Mainly migrant-led organisations, these actors aspire to be part of the aid industry but are unable to bid for aid-funded projects and are confined to play a subordinate role in the migration market. Funding injections therefore alter relations between civil society organisations by favouring phenomena of co-optation, conflict, and subordination. This leads to the emergence of conflict among civil society actors, who do not manage to take a unified stance in favour or against the border regime.

In this chapter, the framework proposed in Chapter 2 is applied to the history of English. The discourse markers studied are after all, anyway, I mean, if you like, if you will, instead, like, no doubt, right, so to say/so to speak, well, and what else. The findings presented are in support of the hypothesis proposed in Section 1.5, according to which discourse markers are the joint product of two separate mechanisms, with each of the mechanisms accounting for specific properties of discourse markers.

In this chapter, the framework proposed in Chapter 2 is applied to the history of French. The discourse markers studied are à la rigueur, à propos, à ce propos, alors, en fait, au fait, and enfin. The findings presented are in support of the hypothesis proposed in Section 1.5, according to which discourse markers are the joint product of two separate mechanisms, with each of the mechanisms accounting for specific properties of discourse markers.

In this chapter, the framework proposed in Chapter 2 is applied to the history of Korean. The discourse markers studied are icey, makilay, maliya, and tul. The findings presented are in support of the hypothesis proposed in Section 1.5, according to which discourse markers are the joint product of two separate mechanisms, with each of the mechanisms accounting for specific properties of discourse markers.

In this chapter, the framework proposed in Chapter 2 is applied to the history of Japanese. The discourse markers studied are dakedo, demo, douride, ga, jijitsu, sate, and wake. The findings presented are in support of the hypothesis proposed in Section 1.5, according to which discourse markers are the joint product of two separate mechanisms, with each of the mechanisms accounting for specific properties of discourse markers.