[Lingtyp] Pragmatic cue support: a soft onset of grammaticalization
Paolo Ramat
paoram at unipv.it
Mon Oct 16 11:03:45 UTC 2023
Dear Jurgen,
thanks for your interesting question. If I have well understood what you
are looking for, It. *codesto *could be an example of pragmatic cue
support (PCS).
*codesto " *that by you" (i.e. 'near the hearer) < *cotesto (*with
lenition of the intervocalic -*t-*- > -*d*-) is an ADJ/demonstr. PRO,
grammaticalized from the (late) Lat. expression **eccu(m) tibi istu(m) *where
the dative form of 2nd personal PRO *tu *is involved -as you write- into a
lexical expression, originally weakly grammaticalized, in order to clarify
the co-constituent’s intended interpretation, particularly its reference
(Actually, *eccu(m) istu(m)* > It. *questo *has no PCS and means simply
"this" , mostly intended as near the speaker.)
References: Paolo Ramat, Language change and language contact. In Konstanze
Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano (eds.), *Manual of Deixis in Romance
Languages,* Vol. 6 of *Manuals of **Romance Linguistics* ed. by Günter
Holtus and Fernando Sánchez Miret. De Gruyter , Berlin / Boston 2015:
581-596.
Paolo Ramat, La déixis du point de vue cognitif et linguistique. In : *La
déixis et son expression dans les langues romanes. *Sous la direction de
Maria Helena Araújo Carreira et Andreea Teletin. Université Paris 8,
Vincennes Saint Denis. Travaux et documents 62 – 2017 : 29-42.
Best wishes,
Paolo.
Prof. Dr. Paolo Ramat
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Socio corrispondente
'Academia Europaea'
'Societas Linguistica Europaea', Honorary Member
Università di Pavia (retired)
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS Pavia) (retired)
‘that by you’
piazzetta Arduino 11 - I 27100 Pavia
##39 0382 27027
347 044 98 44
Il giorno dom 15 ott 2023 alle ore 20:43 Juergen Bohnemeyer <
jb77 at buffalo.edu> ha scritto:
> Dear all – I’m looking for leads regarding existing research and thinking
> on a topic of grammaticalization theory (GT) that from my perspective has
> been neglected a bit. At least it has not to my knowledge been discussed as
> a separate process in the context of GT (with the arguable exception of
> Traugott & König 1991, which I discuss below).
>
>
>
> In the earliest stages of the grammaticalization of functional expressions
> (function words, inflections, highly productive derivations), we can
> distinguish at least two distinct scenarios:
>
>
>
> One involves a lexical expression of a semantic relation which
> subsequently turns into an operator of an argument of the relation. Think a
> relational noun or serialized verb that turns into an adposition or case
> marker. This has been dealt with extensively in GT. (In fact, this is
> probably the kind of phenomenon that the rediscovery of grammaticalization
> in the 1970s took off from.) To have a label to distinguish this scenario
> from the one I’m interested in, let’s provisionally call this first kind of
> scenario *grammaticalization of lexical relators*.
>
>
>
> The other, from my point of view neglected, scenario is what I’d like to
> call provisionally *pragmatic cue support* (PCS). This involves a lexical
> expression or weakly grammaticalized functional expression that is
> optionally combined with a co-constituent in order to clarify the
> co-constituent’s intended interpretation, particularly its reference.
> Examples:
>
>
>
> - A demonstrative is optionally added to a nominal to indicate
> definiteness (in a pretheoretical sense). Subsequent grammaticalization
> turns the demonstrative into a definite article.
> - A semantically generic noun is combined with a nominal in an
> appositive or possessive construction or through compounding in order to
> disambiguate the referent. Subsequent grammaticalization turns the noun
> into a noun class or gender marker.
> - Perfective aspect is used to conversationally implicate past time
> reference. Subsequent grammaticalization turns it into a past tense marker.
> - Any form of optional inflectional morphology, such as optional case
> markers and optional plural marking, can be considered instances of PCS,
> regardless of whether it involves grammaticalization or not.
>
>
>
> The distinction between PCS and the grammaticalization of lexical relators
> is not a trivial matter. Nevertheless, I am for now committed to the
> assumption that the two are distinct phenomena. (There are also instances
> of grammaticalization of (what most linguists consider a type of)
> functional expressions that are not clearly exemplars of either of the two
> scenarios – particularly, the development of personal pronouns out of
> demonstratives (Heine & Song 2011). If it’s a forced choice, I would
> subsume the evolution of pronouns out of demonstratives under PCS, but that
> would necessitate broadening the definition.)
>
>
>
> So, again, I’m looking for literature and thoughts on the PCS phenomenon.
> I speculate that the reason that PCS has apparently been neglected in GT
> (as a distinct phenomenon) is that GT as we know it has focused on the
> semantic and morphosyntactic changes that may occur subsequently to PCS.
> PCS does not itself involve processes such as coalescence or
> attrition/bleaching – it is merely a prelude to such processes, a “soft”
> onset of grammaticalization.
>
>
>
> Fwiw., here’s what relevant literature I’m aware of:
>
>
>
> - PCS might fall under what Lehmann (1985) discusses as ‘creativity’
> in grammaticalization, which reflects freedom of expressive choice coupled
> with the speaker’s desire to “give the fullest possible expression” (p315)
> to her intended meaning. However, creativity in Lehmann’s sense is a
> broader phenomenon, since the examples he considers are reinforcements and
> renewals such as the development of an analytical future tense alongside
> the existing synthetic one in Vulgar Latin and then again in Romance.
> (Haspelmath (1999) seems to rechristen Lehmann’s ‘creativity’
> ‘extravagance’.)
> - The closest thing I’ve found to a proper discussion of PCS is the
> treatment of the conventionalization of conversational implicatures in
> Traugott & König (1991) (cf. also Hopper & Traugott (2003 [1993]: 71-98)),
> focusing on semantic shift of temporal connectives to connectives
> expressing relations of causality, concession, preference, and/or denial.
> However, although Traugott & König’s paper seems to start out with the
> premise that the relevant types of grammaticalization processes serve to
> boost informativeness, and thus facilitate processing, it seems to take a
> different tack at the conclusion, where the authors propose that the
> relevant processes instantiate a previous unrecognized form of metonymy.
> Plus, it does not seem to be the case that all instances of PCS involve
> implicature.
> - Traugott & Trousdale (2013: 198-203) bring Traugott & König’s ideas
> even closer to what I’m looking for, by considering the role of
> implicatures of the relevant kind as providing onset contexts for
> grammaticalization.
> - Lastly, the pragmatics and psycholinguistics of optional case
> marking has been studied by Fedzechkina et al. (2012), Kurumada & Jaeger
> (2015), Kurumada & Grimm (2019), and Fedzechkina & Jaeger (2020). But that
> work does not address the grammaticalization perspective.
>
>
>
> Thanks! And, apologies for the long message 🙄 – Juergen
>
>
>
>
>
> Fedzechkina, M., T. F. Jaeger, & E. L. Newport. (2012). Language learners
> restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. *PNAS*
> 109(44): 17897-17902.
>
> Fedzechkina, M. & T. F. Jaeger. (2020). Production efficiency can cause
> grammatical change: Learners deviate from the input to better balance
> efficiency against robust message transmission. *Cognition* 196: article
> 104115.
>
> Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible?
> *Linguistics* 37(6): 1043-1068.
>
> Heine, B. & K.-A. Song. (2011). On the grammaticalization of personal
> pronouns. *Journal of Linguistics* 47(3): 587-630.
>
> Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. (20032 [1993]). *Grammaticalization*.
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>
> Kurumada, C. & S. Grimm. (2019). Predictability of meaning in grammatical
> encoding: Optional plural marking. *Cognition* 191: Article 103953.
>
> Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Communicative efficiency in
> language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. *Journal of
> Memory and Language* 83: 152–178.
>
> Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and
> diachronic change. *Lingua e Stile *20: 303-18.
>
> Traugott, E. C. & E. König. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of
> grammaticalization revisited. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.), *Approaches
> to grammaticalization*. *Volume I: Focus on theoretical and
> methodological issues*. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 189-218.
>
> Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. (2013). *Constructionalization and
> constructional changes*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>
> Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585
> 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)
>
> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> (Leonard Cohen)
>
> --
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20231016/dff2122f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list