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 …

The Role of Inferencing in Semantic/ Pragmatic Cyclicity: the Case of Latin nunc and French or/maintenant

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen
Published Online: 2018-05-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0007

Abstract

In this paper, I analyze the evolution of the Latin adverb/discourse marker NUNC and its Old and Modern French equivalents, or and maintenant, markers whose content-level source meanings are in all cases equivalent to English now. The analysis pays particular attention to the role of metonymic inference, and to bridging contexts. Showing that the three etymologically unrelated markers have remarkably similar (but crucially not identical) uses, both as temporal adjuncts and as pragmatic markers of various types, I argue that the diachronic changes undergone by these three items constitute a semantic/pragmatic cycle of a type that I call “onomasiological” (cf. Hansen 2015, fc). I suggest that cyclic developments at the level of semantics and pragmatics take place because source items that are semantically similar will favor similar types of contextual inferences. Furthermore, the fact that the range of uses of the items under consideration is not necessarily exactly identical from one cycle to the next supports an instructional view of semantics, which affords a central role in the process of meaning construction precisely to inferencing.

Keywords: Pragmaticalization; Language change; Cyclicity; Inferences; Discourse markers

References

  • Antoine, Gérald. 1962. La coordination en français. Paris: d’Artrey.Google Scholar

  • Bertin, Annie. 2001. Maintenant : un cas de grammaticalisation ? Language française 130 : 42-64.Google Scholar

  • Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: SEDES.Google Scholar

  • Celle, Agnès. 2004. A propos des marqueurs discursifs now and maintenant. In C. Delmas, ed., La contradiction en anglais. St-Etienne: Université de St-Etienne, 91-106.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17: 79-106.Google Scholar

  • De Mulder, Walter and Carl Vetters. 2008. Le sens fondamental de maintenant : un token reflexive. Cahiers Chronos 20, 15-33.Google Scholar

  • Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie and Paola Pietandrea. 2013. Modal particles and discourse markers: two sides of the same coin? In Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie and Paola Pietandrea, eds., Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-18.Google Scholar

  • Detges, Ulrich. 2007. Altfranzösisch or und deutsch jetzt in Fragen. In Elisabeth Stark, Roland Schmidt-Riese and Eva Stoll, eds., Romanische Syntax im Vergleich. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Ernout, Alfred and Alfred Meillet. 1967. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. 4th ed. Paris : Klincksieck. Google Scholar

  • von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse, 2nd ed. Leipzig: Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz.Google Scholar

  • van Gelderen, Elly, 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ghezzi, Chiara and Piera Molinelli. 2014. Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. quaeso and It. prego): the cyclic nature of functional developments. In Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli, eds. Discourse and Pragmatic Markers From Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61-85.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 53.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2008. Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. A Study With Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. (Current Research in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface 19.) Oxford: Elsevier/Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2009. The grammaticalization of negative reinforcers in Old and Middle French: a discoursefunctional approach. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti, eds., Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics. (Studies in Pragmatics 7.) Leiden: Brill, 227-251.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2014. Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: the Medieval particle ja between Latin iam and Modern French déjà. In Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli, eds. Discourse and Pragmatic Markers From Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 139-165.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2015. Phénomènes de cyclicité dans l’évolution des marqueurs pragmatiques. Keynote talk, 4th International Symposium on Discourse Markers in Romance Languages. Heidelberg, Germany, 6-9 May.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. Forthcoming. Cyclic phenomena in the evolution of pragmatic markers. Examples from Romance. In Salvador Pons Bordería & Oscar Loureda Lamas, eds. Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers. New Issues in the Study of Language Change. (Studies in Pragmatics 18) Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83-101.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Høst & Søn.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Internal Factors. Oxford : Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1973. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458-508.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short. 1879. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford : Clarendon Press. < http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059>Google Scholar

  • Librova, Bodhana. 2008. Un aspect de l’actualisation du récit dans la branche I du Roman de Renart : l’adverbe or entre temporalité et argumentation. Loxias 19. http://revel.unice.fr/loxias/index.html?id=2105Google Scholar

  • Loobuyck, Elien. N.d.. Or vs maintenant en ancien et en moyen français. Master’s dissertation, University of Gand. Google Scholar

  • Martinet, André. 1952. Function, structure, and sound change. Word 8(1): 1-32.Google Scholar

  • Meillet, Antoine. 1921. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In his Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Honoré Champion, 130-148.Google Scholar

  • Mellet, Sylvie. 2008. Réflexions autour de maintenant argumentatif. Cahiers Chronos 20 : 77-92.Google Scholar

  • Nef, Frédéric. 1980. Maintenant1 et maintenant2 : de maintenant temporel et non temporel. In Jean David and Robert Martin, eds., La notion d’aspect. Paris : Klincksieck, 145-166.Google Scholar

  • Nyan, Thanh. 1998. Metalinguistic Operators, With Reference to French. Bern : Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Nølke, Henning. 2005. Petite étude diachronique de or. De la déixis temporelle à la déixis textuelle. In Henning Nølke, Irène Baron, Hanne Korzen, Iørn Korzen and Henrik Høeg Müller, eds., Grammatica. Festchrift in Honor of Michael Herslund. Bern: Peter Lang, 393-404.Google Scholar

  • Ollier, Marie-Louise. 1988. Discours intérieur et temporalité : l’adverbe or en récit. In Emmanuelle Baumgartner, Giuseppe de Stefano, Françoise Ferrand, Serge Lusignan, Christiane Marchello-Nizia and Michèle Perret, eds., Le nombre du temps, en hommage à Paul Zumthor. Paris : Honoré Champion, 201-217.Google Scholar

  • Ollier, Marie-Louise. 1989. La séquence or si en ancien français. Une stratégie de persuasion (I). Romania 110 : 289-330.Google Scholar

  • Ollier, Marie-Louise. 1990. La séquence or si en ancien français. Une stratégie de persuasion (II). Romania 111 : 1-36.Google Scholar

  • Ollier, Marie-Louise. 2000a. La forme du sens. Orléans: Paradigme.Google Scholar

  • Ollier, Marie-Louise. 2000b. Or dans l’énoncé interrogatif. L’information grammaticale 86: 31-39.Google Scholar

  • Risselada, Rodie. 1996. And now for something completely different? Temporal discourse markers: Latin nunc and English now. In Rodie Risselada, Jan R. de Jong and A. Machtelt Bolkestein, eds. On Latin. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Harm Pinkster. Amsterdam: Gieben, 105-125.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1): 31-55.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Waltereit, Richard and Ulrich Detges. 2007. Different functions, different histories. Modal particles and discourse markers from different points of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61-80.Google Scholar

  • Zakowski, Samuel. Forthcoming. The evolution of the Ancient Greek deverbal pragmatic markers àge, íthi and phére. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 19(1).Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-07-28

Accepted: 2018-01-15

Published Online: 2018-05-24


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 127–146, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0007.

Export Citation

© 2018 Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen, 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