part3- 24. Historical Pragmatics

part3- 24. Historical Pragmatics, Materiały naukowe, The Hanbook of Pragmatics

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
24. Historical Pragmatics : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Blackwell Reference Online
Page 1 of 17
24. Historical Pragmatics
ELIZABETH CLOSS TRAUGOTT
Subject
Theoretical Linguistics
Ç
Pragmatics
Key
-Topics
Topics
history
DOI:
10.1111/b.9780631225485.2005.00026.x
1 The
1 The Field
Field
During the last two decades, the study of meaning change based in theoretical pragmatics has come
to play an important part in our understanding not only of semantic change and lexicalization, but
also of the relationship between structure and use in general, most especially the nature of contextual
meaning.
1
Historical pragmatics is a usage-based approach to language change
2
which came to be identified
and institutionalized as a field of study largely owing to the work represented in Jucker (1995) and in
the Journal of Historical Pragmatics. Jacobs and Jucker (1995) present an overview of historical
pragmatics from various perspectives, and characterize it as being essentially of two types, which
correspond roughly to the distinction between ÑexternalÒ and ÑinternalÒ language change. The first
they call Ñpragmaphilology.Ò This is a primarily a Ñmacro-approachÒ (Arnovick 1999), and the focus is
on the changing social conditions in which linguistic change occurs, for example changes in the
Ñaims, motives, interests, public and private behaviour, institutions, formulae and ritualsÒ (Jacobs and
Jucker 1995: 5). The prime data are text types that are written or spoken: monologues, conversations,
etc. seen in terms of religious, legal, pedagogical, and other norms of text production and
reproduction. Research along these lines poses anthropological and cross-cultural or inter-cultural
questions. Jacobs and Jucker call the second type of work on historical pragmatics Ñdiachronic
pragmatics.Ò This approach is typically a Ñmicro-approach.Ò The focus is on the interface of linguistic
structure and use, and on Ñwhat types of rules, conditions, and functions of social acts were effective
in earlier stages or processes of language changeÒ (1995: 5). Data are textual evidence for the
development of, for example, honorifics, focus particles, discourse markers, or performative uses of
locutionary verbs. Within diachronic pragmatics, Jacobs and Jucker further distinguish two well-known
approaches that will be important in discussion below (for fuller details see Geeraerts 1997: 17Ï18).
One involves Ñform-to-function mappingÒ and is Ñsemasiological.Ò The dominant question is: What are
the constraints on ways in which a meaning can change while form remains constant (modulo
independent phonological changes)? For example, what are the constraints on the ways in which may
developed polysemies over time? The other approach involves Ñfunction-to-form mappingÒ and is
Ñonomasiological.Ò The dominant question is: What constraints are there on recruitment of extant
terms to express a semantic category? For example, what constraints are there on development of
lexical resources for expressing epistemic possibility?
Although some very important theoretical work has been based on dictionaries, claims made by
scholars like Bral (1900) and Ullmann (1959), or introspection (see especially Horn 1984a et passim),
much recent historical pragmatics is based in textual data. Some text-based work has investigated
changes in patterns of foregrounding and backgrounding of material in the narrative story-line (e.g.
Hopper 1979, Fleischman 1990) or of markers that signal narrative structure (e.g. Brinton 1996).
28.12.2007
24. Historical Pragmatics : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Blackwell Reference Online
Page 2 of 17
Hardly surprisingly, there is considerable overlap between text-based historical pragmatics and
historical discourse analysis; whether there is any significant difference between the two is debatable.
Brinton (2001) provides a threefold classification of historical discourse analysis:
HISTORICAL
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
PROPER
,
DIACHRONICALLY
ORIENTED
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
, and
DISCOURSE
-
ORIENTED
HISTORICAL
LINGUISTICS
. These distinctions are based primarily on the methodological perspective of the work.
According to Brinton, historical discourse analysis proper is essentially synchronic: the study of
pragmatic factors such as orality, text type, or narrative markers, at a particular language stage; for
example, the use of narrative markers in Middle English (this mode of work include aspects of what
Jacobs and Jucker call PRAGMAPHILOLOGY). Diachronically oriented discourse analysis examines the
evolution of forms or systems that have a discourse function, such as the development of particular
adverbials or verbal phrases into narrative markers, or changes in the systems of narrative marking
over time. Discourse-oriented historical linguistics is an approach to historical linguistics that seeks
to find the origins of or motivations for change in discourse, for example the origins of semantic
change in the conventionalizing of implicatures.
The present essay will discuss issues primarily from the perspective of diachronic pragmatics and
diachronically oriented discourse analysis, taking pragmatics to be non-literal meaning that arises in
language use. Section 2 outlines some proposals regarding discourse pragmatic origins and
motivations for semantic and lexical change from a primarily synchronic Ñneo-GriceanÒ perspective,
since this has been the most influential and widely used theoretical approach in historical pragmatics.
Data used from this perspective are usually presented out of context, as individual lexical items, or
constructions. Section 3 introduces proposals embedded in historical linguistics and based on textual
data from historical corpora. Section 4 provides a case study using data of this type.
2 From the Synchronic Perspective on
2 From the Synchronic Perspective on Pragmatics
Pragmatics
Much historical pragmatics builds on work in the early 1970s. An early and seminal suggestion was
made in a short paper by Geis and Zwicky:
It seems to be the case that an invited inference can, historically, become part of
semantic representation in the strict sense; thus, the development of the English
conjunction since from a purely temporal word to a marker of causation can be
interpreted as a change from a principle of invited inference associated with since (by
virtue of the temporal meaning) to a piece of the semantic content of since.
(Geis and Zwicky 1971: 565Ï6)
In this idea they echo Grice (1967), who tentatively remarked, Ñit may not be impossible for what
starts life, so to speak, as a conversational implicature to become conventionalizedÒ (Grice 1989: 39;
for an early follow-up see Brown and Levinson 1987 on the development of honorifics). Two
questions have been of central concern since the mid-1970s:
1 Do different conversational maxims motivate different types of semantic change?
2 Does Grice's distinction between particularized and generalized conversational implicatures
help account for how semantic change occurs?
A further question has been posed primarily within historical linguistics:
3 Are there additional important factors that need to be considered in accounting for
frequently observed types of semantic change?
The first two questions are the topic of the next subsections, the third of section 3.
2.1 The role of conversational maxims in
2.1 The role of conversational maxims in semantic change
semantic change
A central issue in the debate around Gricean pragmatics has been discussion of the validity of his
28.12.2007
24. Historical Pragmatics : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Blackwell Reference Online
Page 3 of 17
maxims. These were reconceptualized by Horn as Ñprinciples.Ò Levinson further reconceptualized
them as design features of communication or Ñheuristics,Ò available to speakers and hearers when
they attempt to solve the problem of converting thought into speech (ÑheuristicsÒ is the term adopted
here).
3
In neo-Gricean pragmatics, as exemplified by, for example, Atlas and Levinson (1981), Horn
(1984a) and later works, some kind of division of labor has been maintained between what Grice
initially identified as Quantity
1
: ÑMake your contribution as informative as is required (for the current
purposes of the exchange)Ò and Quantity
2
(ÑDo not make your contribution more informative than is
requiredÒ) (Grice 1989: 26). Among reasons given in Horn (1984a) and Levinson (2000a) for retaining
the division of labor, despite objections from other research paradigms, especially Relevance Theory
(e.g. Sperber and Wilson 1986a), is semantic change.
Since Horn's and Levinson's proposals, although related, suggest slightly different issues for semantic
change, I treat each separately.
2.2 Horn's proposals
Invoking Zipf's (1949) recognition that much of language use can be accounted for in terms of the
competing forces of speaker economy vs. hearer economy, Horn collapsed Grice's Maxims into two
principles, Q(uantity) and R(elation):
(1) a. The Q Principle
The Q Principle (hearer-based):
MAKE YOUR CONTRIBUTION SUFFICIENT (cf. Quantity
1
). SAY AS MUCH AS YOU CAN (given R).
Lower-bounding principle, inducing upper-bounding implicata.
b. The R Principle
The Q Principle
The R Principle (speaker-based):
MAKE YOUR CONTRIBUTION NECESSARY (cf. Relation, Quantity
2
, Manner).
SAY NO MORE THAN YOU MUST (given Q).
Upper-bounding principle, inducing lower-bounded implicata (Horn 1984a: 13).
The R Principle
Q-based implicature is Ñtypically negative in that its calculation [by the hearer] refers crucially to what
could have been said, but wasn't,Ò and is therefore linguistically motivated, as exemplified by scalar
implicatures such as hold between the members of the pair (all, some). On the other hand, R-based
implicature Ñtypically involves social rather than purely linguistic motivation,Ò as exemplified by
indirect speech acts (Horn 1996a: 313). Nevertheless, as discussed below, since the division of labor
between Q and R principles often concerns lexical distribution of less vs. more complex forms, R-
based implicature is often also linguistically motivated.
Horn relates the Q- and R-based implicatures to two types of semantic change that are well known
from the work of Bral and Ullmann: broadening and narrowing. He suggests that broadening is
always uniquely R-based, e.g. xerox, kleenex (Horn 1984a: 35). In the case of xerox, a salient
exemplar of a wider class, e.g. copy-machines, is generalized to denote that wider class. This is a
case of form-to-function or semasiological change.
Where narrowing is concerned, the issues are more complex. Horn (1984a) mentions various types of
semasiological narrowing in which a superordinate term comes to be interpreted as the complement
of a hyponym, e.g. in certain circumstances, finger is interpreted to exclude its hyponym thumb (e.g.
when one says I hurt my finger), or rectangle is interpreted to exclude square. He calls this
AUTOHYPONOMY. As he argues in Horn (1984b: 117), contra Kempson (1980), such narrowings tend
to be highly irregular (Ñan ornery array of disparate casesÒ). The examples appear to be motivated by
euphemism (cf. stink - smell), restriction of technical terms (e.g. rectangle), association with
particular contexts (e.g. drink Ñalcoholic beverageÒ), and no generalization seems possible other than:
ÑDiachronically, implicated autohyponymy leads to systematic polysemyÒ (Levinson 2000a: 103).
The second type of narrowing is not semasiological but onomasiological since it involves alignments
among the meanings of lexical resources given a pre-existing set of Ñclosely related meanings.Ò
Synchronically there is often a Ñbriefer and/or more lexicalizedÒ form that coexists with a
Ñlinguistically complex or more prolixÒ expression (Horn 1996a: 314). The pair will typically reflect a
pragmatic division of labor: ÑGiven two co-extensive expressions, the more specialized form - briefer
and/or more lexicalized - will tend to become R-associated with a particular unmarked, stereotypical
meaning, use, or situation, while the use of the periphrastic or less lexicalized expression, typically
28.12.2007
24. Historical Pragmatics : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Blackwell Reference Online
Page 4 of 17
(but not always) linguistically more complex or prolix, will tend to be Q-restricted to those situations
outside the stereotype, for which the unmarked expression could not have been used
appropriatelyÒ (Horn 1996a: 314). The less complex term is synchronically narrowed by R-based
inferencing that crystallizes ÑunmarkedÒ meanings such as kill, or will (future). By contrast, the more
complex term is Q-restricted: cause to die implicates that direct causation does not obtain, or that
the speaker does not have adequate information to vouch for it (Horn 1984a, 1996a, citing McCawley
1978; see also e.g. Langacker 1987, vol. 2); be going to Ñblocks the indirect speech act function of
promisingÒ conveyed by will (Horn 1996a: 314).
Horn's claim about the division of labor is understood as motivating the principles variously referred
to as BLOCKING (Aronoff 1976) or the PRINCIPLE OF CONTRAST (E. Clark 1993). It appears to be
generally, perhaps universally, true that there are no true synonyms
4
(see Haiman 1980a on iconic
isomorphism), and that in general, given two or more semantically related lexemes, the more complex
form (morphologically derived or periphrastic) represents the more specialized or less stereotypical
meaning. From a historical point of view, meaning change and the development of new lexical
resources are clearly constrained by ÑAvoid SynonymyÒ (Kiparsky 1982, Horn 1996a) and the principle
of the division of labor. We see this repeatedly in grammaticalization, the stereotypic examples of
which involved the recruitment of a prolix expression (often a construction such as be going to) into
an extant lexical field in certain highly constrained contexts, followed by a realignment of the
members of the extant set, and often the replacement of the earlier by the later construction (see
Hopper and Traugott 1993). We also see it when synonymous lexemes appear or are borrowed (even
though semantically synonymous the latter will always be pragmatically differentiated, precisely
because they are borrowings).
Before looking at some striking cases of diachronically operative constraints on lexicalization that
have been argued to be motivated by the division of labor between more marked and less marked
members of a lexical pairing, several caveats deserve mention:
1 As Horn has often pointed out, the principles are tendencies only. Indeed this is expected,
given that change is never wholly predictable.
2 Discussions of synonymy-avoidance tend to be made in terms of pairs, e.g. cook-cooker,
drill-driller, kill-cause to die. However, these pairs have been extrapolated from a larger lexical
set, making Ñsynonymy-avoidanceÒ less easy to pinpoint. In a recent study of the complexities
of investigating the meanings of competing forms for various types of theft in Old and Middle
English, Roberts (2001) shows that in Old English there was a large set of words for what we
now think of as robbery (involving violence) and theft (not involving violence). These included
several lexemes based on stal-Ñsteal,Ò Ąief- cf. Ñthief,Ò reaf cf. Ñrape.Ò When rob- forms (< Lat.
robaria ÑrobberyÒ) appeared in Middle English around 1200, they were apparently used
synonymously with native forms, but over the next 300 years Ąief-forms gradually narrowed,
stal-forms were restricted to e.g. stealth, and a variety of other lexical alignments took place.
Lexical pairs are, therefore, often only part of a larger, complex story, in which competition,
collocation, and specialized (in this case legal) use may play a part, clouding the attractiveness
of claims about Q vs. R-narrowing made out of the context of the whole lexical field in
question.
3 What ÑsynonymyÒ is may be theory dependent. To what extent should driller or cooker really
be considered to be Ñaffixally derived form[s] synonymous withÒ (Horn 1984a: 25, my
emphasis) the simple forms drill and cook?
4 Although Ñdifferent form implies (partially) different meaningÒ is often regarded as crucial to
an explanation of how the lexicon is constructed and maintained or realigned, its complement
Ñsame form implies (partially) same meaningÒ is often treated differently. Such a principle is
often regarded with suspicion, and has been interpreted either as evidence for monosemy (one
core meaning - see Relevance Theoretic approaches), or homonymy (see generative theories of
semantics). However, from a historical perspective, a theory of semantics encompassing
polysemy is crucial if an adequate account is to be given of semasiological change. Once the
validity of polysemy is accepted, then we begin to see that some of the examples cited as
Ñsynonymy-avoidance,Ò such as the development of cooker beside cook, driller beside drill,
may be thought of from a historical perspective as avoidance of polysemy across noun-verb
28.12.2007
24. Historical Pragmatics : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Blackwell Reference Online
Page 5 of 17
doublets, i.e. innovation to construct contrast, rather than as synonymy-avoidance. However,
this is a very weak tendency, as can be seen from productivity of noun-verb doublets with no
morphological or stress pattern difference between them such as blanket, butcher, sanction.
5 A ÑsimpleÒ form may historically derive from a complex one by loss of morphological and
semantic compositionality or grammaticalization (development of grammatical out of lexical or
constructional meaning), with the result that over time what was originally complex and
marked will become the unmarked term, and a new marked one will enter the system. For
example, will, itself originally a marked periphrastic future that developed to signal future
meaning in Middle English, is being replaced by be gonna at least in spoken language (Krug
2000).
6 The productivity of sets of related lexical items as well as the meanings associated with them
may change over time, as may the extent to which there is evidence for division of labor. An
example is the development of full lexical verb vs. Ñlight verbÒ + deverbal noun (e.g.
advise/give advice, help/give help, answer/give an answer) (Brinton and Akimoto 1999). Old
English (c.600Ï1150) provides relatively little evidence for such pairings. The few examples
that exist are firmly based in larger lexical sets and appear to show only part of the division of
labor found in Modern English (primarily correlation with transitive-intransitive, e.g. cyĄan Ñto
make X knownÒ - cyĄĄe habban Ñhave knowledgeÒ; wrecan Ñto avenge XÒ - wracu don Ñexact
revengeÒ). During Middle English (c.1150Ï1500) periphrastic constructions of various types
developed, e.g. prepositional phrases, complex verbal phrases (pre-auxiliaries + main verb
constructions), and also article + noun phrase; all these syntactic changes together with
borrowings from French correlated with increasing expansion of the lexicon, and by Early
Modern English (c.1500Ï1700) the pairings in question had not only become highly productive
but were also developing new semantic significance. In Modern English Ñthe complex verb is an
important means of making situations telic, that is, of converting activities into
accomplishments or achievements, yet without the necessity of stating an explicit goal (e.g.
dream/have a dream, nibble/have a nibble È)Ò (Brinton and Akimoto 1999: 6). R-based
narrowing of the simple form appears to have occurred only after the complex form became
entrenched in competition with the simpler one.
7 Semantic and lexical change have sometimes been considered to be the same thing (see
Householder 1992) and Horn and Levinson appear to equate them. Unquestionably there is
considerable overlap: word formation involves meaning. This truism does not, however, entail
that all word formation involves change in the same way. When speakers semanticized the
causal implicature from temporal since, they developed a new polysemy; this had distributional
consequences for the older lexeme, only secondarily for the lexical field of causal connectives.
But when speakers innovated cooker, they developed a new form and also a new meaning that
had consequences for the lexical field of instruments for cooking, only secondarily for the
lexeme cook. The distinction being made here is once again the distinction between
semasiological and onomasiological change. Because the consequences of these innovations
are different, inferences do not necessarily function in the same way on the two dimensions.
All these caveats aside, the hypothesis that Q- vs. R-based inferencing motivates lexicalization is a
powerful one. Horn (1989: chapters 5 and 6; this volume) makes a particularly interesting hypothesis
regarding the relevance of the Q principle in an attempt to predict the (near) universal lack of lexical
items that denote the negation of the weaker member of a scaled pair. He points out that in the
logical square of oppositions O (Ñparticular negativeÒ) is typically not lexicalized as a monomorphemic
form, although periphrastic expressions may occur. Thus we find some, all, none, and not all, but not
*nall. Likewise there is no *nalways, or *noth of them. Horn proposes that the reason for such
structural gaps is the conventionalization of (defeasible) scalar implicatures. The generalization is that
historically a lexicalized expression of negative scalar O will not occur since I and O co-implicate each
other and pre-existing I blocks O.
Horn has also shown that the lexicalization of modals has similar restrictions: alethic (or in natural
language, more properly epistemic) modality typically allows only complex forms in the O position.
For example, in contemporary English there is no monomorphemic form meaning Ñpossible notÒ or
Ñpermit notÒ in the O corner, and in American English no reduced form mayn't occurs for Ñpermit not.Ò
28.12.2007
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

zanotowane.pl

doc.pisz.pl

pdf.pisz.pl

anio102.xlx.pl