Cover not available
Introduction published In:
The Role of Pragmatics in Cyclic Language Change
Edited by Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen
[Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21:2] 2020
► pp. 165–181

Introduction

The role of pragmatics in cyclic language change

| University of Manchester
In Section 1 of my introduction to this Special Issue, I define the concept of semantic–pragmatic cycles, a relatively recently discovered phenomenon, drawing a distinction between two sub-types: onomasiological and semasiological cycles. Semantic–pragmatic cycles are contrasted with the more widely known (morpho-)syntactic cycles such as the Negative Cycle (or Jespersen Cycle), and I discuss possible connections between these two types of cycles. Finally, I raise some questions for further research. In Section 2, I outline the empirical and/or theoretical contribution of each of the six papers that follow – considering, in particular, how they contribute to elucidating the role of pragmatics in cyclic change.
Keywords: cyclicity, grammaticalization, language change, onomasiology, pragmaticalization, semasiology
Article outline
  • 1.Cyclic language change
    • 1.1(Morpho)syntactic cycles
    • 1.2Semantic–pragmatic cycles
    • 1.3Parallels and inter-relations between types of cycles
    • 1.4Further perspectives
  • 2.The papers in this issue
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00040.mos
References (52)
References
Bouzouita, Miriam, Anne Breitbarth, Lieven Danckaert and Elisabeth Witzenhausen (eds). 2019. Cycles in Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep. 1992–93. “Sobre l’evolució dels nexes conjuntius in català” [“On the Evolution of the Conjunctive Nexus in Catalan”]. Llengua and Literatura 51: 173–213.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’hoendt, Lauren Fonteyn and Kristel Van Goethem. 2018. “The Changing Functions of Competing Forms: Attraction and Differentiation”. Cognitive Linguistics 29 (2): 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich. 2018. “Strong Pronouns in Modern Spoken French. Cliticization, Constructionalization, Grammaticalization?”. Linguistics 56 (5): 1059–1098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Future Markers in Western Romance: Cyclic Change, Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Competition”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21 (2): 290–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich and Richard Waltereit. 2002. “Grammaticalization vs Reanalysis: A Semantic–Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21 (2): 151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Grammaticalization and Pragmaticalization”. In Susann Fischer and Christoph Gabriel (eds), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, 635–657. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt and Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. “Pragmaticalization: The Case of ba’ and you know ”. Studier i modern språkvetenskap 101: 76–93.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara and Chiara Ghezzi. 2014. “The Pragmaticalization of Verbs of Movement and Exchange in Latin and Italian: Paths of Development from Lexicon to Pragmatics”. In Ilona Badescu and Mihaela Popescu (eds), Studia linguistica et philologica: In honorem Prof. Univ. Dr. Michaela Livescu [‘Studies in Linguistic Philology: In Honour of University Professor Dr. Michaela Livescu’], 116–139. Craiova: Editura Universitaria.Google Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth Beale. 2007. “The Emergence of Emphatic ne in Conversational Swiss French”. Journal of French Language Studies 17 (3): 249–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse [‘Linguistics: Tasks, Methods and Results So Far’]. (Second edition.) Leipzig: Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Cyclicity”. In Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 467–488. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2009. Cyclical Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2016. Cyclical Change Continued. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus. 2016. “Modality and Gradation: Comparing the Sequel of Developments in rather and eher ”. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical Change Continued, 319–350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara and Piera Molinelli. 2014. “Deverbal Pragmatic Markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. quaeso and Italian prego): The Cyclic Nature of Functional Developments”. In Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli (eds), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages, 61–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Eitan and Stéphane Polis. 2014. “On the Pragmatics of Subjectification: The Emergence and Modalization of an Allative Future in Ancient Egyptian”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 46 (1): 25–63. DOI logoGoogle 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. Oxford and Leiden: Elsevier and Brill.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Negation in the History of French”. In David Willis, Christopher Lucas and Anne Breitbarth (eds), The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, 51–76. (Volume I1: Case Studies.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Cyclicity in Semantic/Pragmatic Change: Old French 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, 139–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. “Cyclic Phenomena in the Evolution of Pragmatic Markers: Examples from Romance”. In Salvador Pons Bordería and Oscar Loureda Lamas (eds), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, 51–77. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. “The Expression of Clause Negation: From Latin to Early French”. In Anne Carlier and Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds), Latin tardif/français ancien: continuïtés et ruptures [‘Late Latin/Old French: Continuity and Radical Change’], 267–295. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018c. “The Role of Inferencing in Semantic–Pragmatic Cyclicity: The Case of Latin nunc and French or/maintenant ”. Open Linguistics 41: 127–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020a. “Cyclic Changes to the French Negative Coordinating Conjunction”. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Conference of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. 26 August to 1 September.
. 2020b. “De ainz à plutôt: un cycle de pragmaticalisation” [“From ainz to plutôt: A Cycle of Pragmaticalization”]. In Olga Inkova (ed.), Autour de la reformulation [‘Studies on Reformulation’]. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Jacqueline Visconti. 2009. “On the Diachrony of ‘Reinforced’ Negation in French and Italian”. In Corinne Rossari, Claudia Ricci and Adriana Spiridon (eds), Grammaticalization and Pragmatics: Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues, 137–171. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Høst and Søn.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and Cleo Condoravdi. 2006. “Tracking Jespersen’s Cycle”. In Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph and Angela Ralli (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, 172–197. Mytilene: Doukas.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre and Richard A. Ingham (eds). 2011. The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. “Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change”. Lingua e stile XX (3): 303–318.Google Scholar
Lucas, Christopher. 2007. “Jespersen’s Cycle in Arabic and Berber”. Transactions of the Philological Society 105 (3): 398–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921. “L’évolution des formes grammaticales” [“The Evolution of Grammatical Forms”]. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale [‘Historical Linguistics and General Linguistics’], 130–148. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raible, Wolfgang. 1996. “Kognition und Sprachwandel” [“Cognition and Language Change”]. Akademie-Journal 11: 38–43.Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta and Nikolaus Himmelmann. 2017. “Renewal: A Figure of Speech or a Process sui generis?”. Language 93 (2): 381–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1992. “A Formal Account of Grammaticalization in the History of Romance Futures”. Folia Linguistica Historica 13 (1/2): 219–258.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte and Eitan Grossman. 2017. “The Road to Auxiliariness Revisited: The grammaticalization of finish anteriors in Spanish”. Diachronica 34 (3): 516–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rupp, Laura and Sali Tagliamonte. 2017. “ This Here Town: Evidence for the Development of the English Determiner System from a Vernacular Demonstrative Construction in York English”. English Language and Linguistics 23 (1): 81–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis and Ilja. A. Seržant (eds). 2019. Explanation in Linguistic Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin. 1990. Analyticity and Syntheticity: A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. 2006. “Fine-Tuning Jespersen’s Cycle”. In Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, 327–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scivoletto, Giulio. 2020. “Semasiological Cyclicity in the Evolution of Discourse Markers: A Case from Sicilian”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21 (2): 237–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. “The Jespersen Cycles”. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical Change, 35–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vindenes, Urd. 2018. “Cyclic Renewal of Demonstratives”. Studies in Language 42 (3): 641–668. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallage, Phillip. 2017. Negation in Early English: Grammatical and Functional Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2020. “Parallels Between the Negative Cycle and the Rise of Interrogative Marking in French”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21 (2): 264–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Beeching, Kate
2023. Maryann Overstreet and George Yule, General extenders: The forms and functions of a new linguistic category. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Pp. x + 238. ISBN 9781108837231.. English Language and Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
JARRETT, DYLAN & PATRÍCIA AMARAL
2023. Usage‐Based Approaches to Semantic Change. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2022. From deontic modality to conditionality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 23:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Shefer, Hagit
2022. Face-saving strategies: The case of Hebrew SAY expressions. Lingua 280 ► pp. 103439 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.