Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Rethinking the Role of Invited Inferencing in Change from the Perspective of Interactional Texts

Elizabeth Closs Traugott
Published Online: 2018-05-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0002

Abstract

The hypothesis that “invited inferences” are factors in change and challenges to it are reviewed. In light of recent work on historical construction grammar and interactional discourse analysis, I suggest that at least three types of inferences play a role in interactional contexts: local inferences associated with specific expressions; discourse structuring inferences pertaining to factors like coherence, backgrounding and foregrounding; and turn-taking inferences associated with turn relevant positions. A case study tests this suggestion: the development of discourse structuring uses of a family of Look expressions. Turn-taking has been regarded as a trigger in related changes. However, in this case not turn-taking, but rather a profile shift associated with non-use of complementizers is hypothesized to be a crucial enabling factor.

Keywords: discourse structuring markers; interactional discourse; language change; profile shifts; projectors; turn-taking; Look expressions

References

  • Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Actualization: Linguistic change in progress, 225-248. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection grammar. Text 25. 7-36.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Kent. 2006. The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Betty Birner & Gregory Ward (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning, 21-30. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges (eds.). 2014. Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bublitz, Wolfram. 2017. Oral features in fiction. In Miriam A. Locher & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Pragmatics of fiction, 235-263. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Cappelle, Bert & Ilse Depraetere. 2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions. In Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere (eds.), Modal meaning in Construction Grammar, special issue of Constructions and Frames 8(1). 7-39.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. Harlow, Essex: Longman, Pearson Ed.Google Scholar

  • Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Degand, Liesbeth & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmtaicalization of discourse markers? Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1). 59-85.Google Scholar

  • Degen, Judith. 2015. Investigating the distribution of some (but not all) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods. Semantics & Pragmatics 8(11). 1-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.11 (accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar

  • Deo, Ashwini. 2015. The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: The progressive to imperfective shift. Semantics & Pragmatics 8(14). 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.14 (accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar

  • Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit. 2011. Turn-taking as a trigger for language change. In Sarah Dessí, Ulrich Detges, Paul Gévaudan, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Richard Waltereit (eds.), Rahmen des Sprechens. Beiträge zu Valenztheorie, Varietätenlinguistik, Kreolistik, kognitiver und historischer Semantik, 175-189. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 103-120. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Duranti, Alessandro & Charles Goodwin (eds.). 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2009. APO: Avoid Pragmatic Overload. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics, 21-41. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76(3). 546-592.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2016. Semantic and pragmatic change. In Merja Kytö & Päivi Pahta (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 256-270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6. 167-190.Google Scholar

  • Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 1. 293-320.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens. 2007. Introducing cognitive linguistics. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 3-21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1989 [1975]. Logic and conversation. Studies in the way of words, 22-40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress. Google Scholar

  • Grossman Eitan & Ira Noveck. 2015. What can historical linguistics and experimental pragmatics offer each other? Lingvan-2015-1005. https://www.academia.edu/11624742/What_can_historical_linguistics_and_experimental_pragmatics_offer_each_other (accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54(3). 565-589.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M. A.K. & Ruqaia Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2005. From prepositional phrase to hesitation marker: The semantic and pragmatic evolution of French enfin. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(1). 37-68.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2008. Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Synchronic and diachronic issues: A study with special reference to the French phasal adverbs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard & Jacqueline Visconti (eds.). 2009. Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard & Richard Waltereit. 2006. GCI theory and language change. Acta Lingvistica Hafniensia 38. 235-268.Google Scholar

  • Haselow, Alexander. 2014. Sequentiality in dialogue as a trigger for grammaticalization. In Silvie Hancil & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization-Theory and data, 203-233. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Haselow, Alexander. 2016. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences 54. 77-101.Google Scholar

  • Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83-101. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2016. On the diversity of ‘changes of state’ and their indices. Journal of Pragmatics 104. 207-210.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications; Georgetown University Round Table ‘84, 11-42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence R. 2009. Implying and inferring. In Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence R. 2016. Conventional wisdom reconsidered. Inquiry 59 (2). 145-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2015.1125133 (accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1940. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, Part V: Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

  • Jucker, Andreas H., Gerd Fritz & Franz Lebsanft (eds.). 1999. Historical dialogue analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language. Translated by Brigitte Nerlich. London: Routledge (first published in 1990 in German).Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lepore, Ernie & Matthew Stone. 2015. Imagination and convention: Distinguishing grammar and inference in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the human “interaction engine”. In Nicholas J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 39-69. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

  • Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Locher, Miriam A. & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.). 2017. Pragmatics of fiction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Maschler, Yael. 2012. Emergent projecting constructions. Studies in Language 34(4). 785-847.Google Scholar

  • Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, Jerry L. 1977. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. Technical Report No. 52. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/17765/ctrstreadtechrepv01977i00052_opt.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar

  • Paradis, Carita. 2011. Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Inbáñez (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Toward a consensus view, 61-88. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Petré, Peter. 2015. Grammaticalization by changing co-text frequencies, or why [BE Ving] became the ‘progressive’. English Language and Linguistics 20(1). 31-54.Google Scholar

  • Pons Bordería, Salvador. 2014. Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea. In Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (eds.), Discourse and pragmatic markers from Latin to Romance, 109-138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Potts, Christopher. 2015. Presupposition and implicature. In Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Chichester, UK: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch6 (accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar

  • Sawada, Jun. 2015. The affective COME in Japanese: Deictic elements in the right periphery. Paper presented at the workshop on Peripheries and Constructionalization in Japanese and English organized by Yuko Higashiizumi and Jun Sawada, IPrA 14, Antwerp, July 26-31.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 543-557.Google Scholar

  • Schwenter, Scott A. & Richard Waltereit. 2010. Presupposition accommodation and language change: From additivity to speech-act marking. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 75-102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Selting, Margret. 2000. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29. 477-517.Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2007. ‘Look’-prefaced turns in first and second position: Launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies 9(3). 387-408.Google Scholar

  • Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995[1986]. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd, rev. edn.Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. 2016. In defense of indirect communication. Inquiry 59(2). 163-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2015.1125135 (accessed 1 February 2018).Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245-271. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. The role of pragmatics in a theory of semantic change. In Jef Verschueren (ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. 2, 93-102. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2017. A constructional exploration into “clausal periphery” and the pragmatic markers that occur there. In Noriko Onodera (ed.), Periphery: Where pragmatic meaning is negotiated, 55-73. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1, 189-218. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 51-72. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Waltereit, Richard. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 61-76. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-08-24

Accepted: 2018-02-16

Published Online: 2018-05-24


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 19–34, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0002.

Export Citation

© 2018 Elizabeth Closs Traugott, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in