<html>
Could we get one step further by making the following distinctions
?<br>
Let us assume that we distinguish between "expressivity" and
"efficiency" as factors in linguistic change. It's an old
distinction, but let's add something to it by identifying
subcases:<br><br>
<b>1 expressivity factors<br>
</b><x-tab> </x-tab>1.1 -
directly: performing a specific speech act with a specific purpose<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>1.2 -
indirectly ("connotationally"): identifying oneself as a member
of a specific speech community etc.<br>
<b>2 efficiency factors<br>
</b><x-tab> </x-tab>2.1 -
from the point of view of the speaker: economy of pronunciation
etc.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>2.2 - from
the point of view of the hearer: intelligibility etc.<br><br>
A few clarifications before coming to the main point:<br>
- Changes triggered by 1.1 will be located in the lexicon mainly,
involving an 'expressive need' to be able to talk about new products or
ideas and the like.<br>
- Factor 1.2 introduces sociolinguistic mechanisms of imitation and
identification (as actuating factors) as a specific kind of
expressivity.<br>
- The factors under 2 refer to the basic tendencies discussed by Natural
Phonology, but the distinction between speaker-oriented and
hearer-oriented efficieny can be applied outside the field of phonology.
(For instance, I have tried to show that the distinction can be usefully
applied in the context of a prototype-theoretical conception of lexical
meaning: Geeraerts 1997, ch. 3.)<br><br>
Now, the main points for the ongoing discussion could be the
following:<br><br>
a) As far as <i>terminology</i><b> </b>is concerned, all of the factors
mentioned above are functional ones in an <br>
everyday sense of 'functional' (as "serving a purpose"):
bringing across messages, whether direct or indirect, is a function of
language, and doing so efficiently is also a functional
motivation.<br><br>
b) As far as <i>actual changes</i> are concerned, the different factors
may be at odds in different ways. Again, one could refer to Natural
Phonology for discussions of the tension between the different
directionalities of change implied by 2.1 and 2.2, but perhaps the
clothing analogy that came up in the discussion provides a good model of
what is at stake. Clothes serve a specific purpose like keeping you warm
(1.1), and your style of clothing identifies you as a specific type of
person (1.2). It is well known, though, that many people sacrifice
comfort (speaker-oriented efficiency 2.1 in achieving 1.1) for style
(hearer-oriented efficiency 2.2 in achieving 1.2).<br>
If this correct, a major task for a theory of change would be to chart
the types of conflicts that you can get and to determine whether there
are tendencies (or even laws) in the way in which they are
resolved.<br><br>
- Dirk Geeraerts<br><br>
<br>
Dirk Geeraerts<br>
Professor of Linguistics<br>
Departement Linguïstiek KULeuven<br>
Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, B-3000 Leuven, België<br>
website:
<a href="http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/gling/" eudora="autourl">http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/gling/</a>
</html>