Diane Blakemore. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 99.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Quo vadis grammaticalization theory?, or: Why complex language change is like words
The paper focuses on structural aspects of language change which have been ascribed to grammaticalization and have tacitly been presupposed by diverse accounts (i) of the motives of complex changes, (ii) of the role of language contact, and (iii) by attempts to create areal profiles of language types and zones of convergence. The article discusses some of the preconditions for a comprehensive and yet unified treatment of changes in which grammaticalization would not become an anything-goes-concept of grammatical change. Starting from a reconsideration of Lehmann’s parameters and their treatment in the literature, the paper first addresses problems connected to accounts based on prototypes (or checklists). Parameters belonging to the syntagmatic axis are analyzed in more detail. Even though parameters may be ranked within prototype-based approaches, such an approach is shown to be insufficient in articulating a coherent theory. An alternative might consist in the application of a superordinate principle based on relative discourse prominence (together with conventionalization). The advantages and drawbacks of both approaches are investigated, and it is argued that they should be employed as complementary parts of a coherent grammaticalization theory that is yet to be detailed.
Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 1992
This volume derives from the symposium "The causes of language change: do we know them yet?" at the University of Troms0 in 1987. The papers offer no major breakthroughs in understanding the causes of linguistic change, nor does any cohesive overview emerge of why languages change. Nevertheless, this collection does contain valuable contributions. The views of causes and explanation in these papers vary greatly in scale and orientation. They range from explications of individual changes to rather abstract, programmatic overviews. Most of the papers do not indicate what they mean by "explanation" or "cause". For most linguists, explanation is not the Coseriu-Andersen "rational explication" (p. 7), nor are linguists likely to accept Ureland's assertions of (perhaps better called hopes for) a paradigm shift which makes more room for social and political factors. At the other end of the scale, Ohala (pp. 173-5) argues that all sciences ultimately resort to "probabilistic explanations" which are not fully nomological (exceptionless, lawful), while he avoids teleological explanations, preferring mechanistic ones. And what about "change"? The views represented vary greatly. Ureland would subsume linguistic change under social and political change, and Muhlhausler seems to concur. Andersen follows Coseriu's claim (which Andersen upholds only in part) that linguistic change does not exist (p. 12); Andersen observes that "in linguistics the word 'change' has come to be more of a liability than an asset" (p. 11)! Ohala holds sound change to be non-mentalistic and the lack of change to be the evidence that speakers create rules in their grammars (p. 193). The variety of approaches represented here is best appreciated by reference to the individual papers. Henning Andersen's "Understanding linguistic innovations" is an accessible repetition of his views (published, for example, in Andersen 1975,1980a, 1980b, 1988). This is a programmatic presentation, with no examples, of Andersen's broad-scale approach to linguistic change. Andersen acknowledges extensive inspiration from Coseriu. For Coseriu, the task of the historical linguist is not causal explanation but that of rational explication. Andersen, however, attempts to avoid one of the often-criticized shortcomings of Coseriu's scheme, that of underemphasizing aspects of language change that are not necessarily subject to human will (i.e. certain universals). Central to the Coseriu-Andersen view of language change is the asymmetrical relationship between norms (actual usage) and system (productive rules)-for example, unproductive patterns defined in the norms may be curtailed and superceded by the productive patterns of the system (p. 19). For Andersen, since grammar acquisition is based on abduction, divergent interpretations of the same usage are possible. Different speakers are capable of producing usage which conforms to the same norms in spite of differences in their internal grammatical systems (p. 19).
Dynamic Shift in the Verb Semantics: A Case of Some Four-Letter Verbs
Studia Neophilologica, 2015
The traditional English verb classifi cation based upon their grammatical meaning is a certain matrix according to which new units are grouped. The present investigation is aimed at integral describing the verbs of the ‘give’ type in the model “to give a smile”. The analysis of its constituents does not give any new information, however, its analysis as an integral unit in the sentence and discourse can reveal it as a structural-semantic unity, wherein a redistribution of the lexical meaning takes place. Since Otto Jespersen defi ned them as “light verbs" they have been in the focus of research of grammarians, semanticists, discourse experts, and cognitologists. In the framework of our research the referred verbs in the given model are presented as the result of grammaticalization and lexicalization — major factors of the English language development.