[Lingtyp] Pragmatic cue support: a soft onset of grammaticalization

[Juergen Bohnemeyer]

Dear Christian – Thanks! A few quick responses:


From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:48
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Pragmatic cue support: a soft onset of grammaticalization
Dear Jürgen,

I find it difficult to assist you in your search for more than one reason:
·         You assume a division  of grammaticalization into two kinds but do not make explicit the criteria which produce such a division. Consequently, you also recognize cases like the grammaticalization of third person pronouns which do not neatly fit into either of your categories. This could be avoided only if there was a binary criterion, with two logically contradictory values, producing the division. E.g.: 'grammaticalization of a lexical relator vs grammaticalization of anything that is not a lexical relator'; or alternatively 'grammaticalization of a syntagma consisting of a pragmatic cue and its host vs. grammaticalization of anything else'.
Agreed. Unfortunately, I’m not yet in a position to propose an exhaustive classification of grammaticalization scenarios, otherwise I would have done so. Sorry!
·         Also, the grammaticalization of lexical relators specifically concerns the initial phase of an ideally complete grammaticalization process, while pragmatic cue support may concern any of its phases or possibly not be related to grammaticalization at all; which also renders this pair an impure contrast.
Agreed. PCS does not seem to be inherently a grammaticalization phenomenon (though that might depend on the definition of ‘grammaticalization’). Nevertheless, I’m convinced that it plays a powerful role in grammaticalization. It provides a motivation for adding ancillary expressive machinery to another expression in order to facilitate that expression’s processing and boost the probability of the hearer getting the intended meaning.
·         You do not define pragmatics (just as almost nobody defines it). In my understanding, pragmatics contrasts with system linguistics, the former dealing with discourse, the latter with the language system, i.e. exclusively with aspects of language which are coded by language signs.
Pragmatics is the study of utterance meaning, whereas semantics in the narrow sense is the study of lexical and compositional meaning. Terminology aside, I think we have the same basic idea.
Presupposing this, it does not seem that all of your examples of pragmatic cue support are actually related to pragmatics. This concerns, in particular, the grammaticalization of a noun into a noun class or gender formative. The semantic side of such a process can be described by semantic changes that abide within the language system. The same goes for optional grammatical markers: If they are present, they add their bit to the (system) meaning of the construction; and otherwise, the meaning of the construction is construed without this bit, which may or may not lead to the same (message) sense as the combination with the formative in question.
Agreed. In fact, as I was composing my query, I was considering dropping the ‘pragmatic’ bit from ‘pragmatic cue support’ or putting it in parenthesis. The reason being that the cues in question aren’t always implicatures, but may in fact be of a semantic nature in the narrow sense, as you say. An alternative would be ‘redundant cue support’, but that would require one to defend the view that the cues in question are always redundant, which is not yet (entirely) clear to me. OTOH just ‘cue support’ by itself seems a bit … spare? What I’m trying to get across is that the cues in question are expressed, not because they are part of the speaker’s intended message, but because they help clarifying that message (or so the speaker hopes).
If I am right with the above, then maybe your topical area is not a subdivision of processes of grammaticalization, but instead the theoretical foundation of the notion of pragmatic cue support and its empirical outfit.

I have to confess I’m not quite sure where you’re going with that. My overall goal is to capture (as in, properly theorize) the role, or rather roles, of communicative efficiency in grammaticalization. *One* of these ways in which communicative efficiency influences (drives?) grammaticalization is by (P)CS providing an efficiency incentive for speakers to enhance their expressions so as optimize the odds of being understood.

The only reason I distinguished scenarios involving (P)CS from other grammaticalization scenarios is simply that it seems clear that not all grammaticalization phenomena involve (P)CS.

Hope this clarifies things (no pun intended)! – Best – Juergen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20231016/53a3878f/attachment.htm>