Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T16:44:42.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - From subjectification to intersubjectification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Elizabeth Closs Traugott
Affiliation:
Professor of English Linguistics University of Stanford, California
Raymond Hickey
Affiliation:
Universität-Gesamthochschule-Essen
Get access

Summary

Introduction

When the history of historical linguistics in the twentieth century is written, one recurrent theme will surely be the hypothesis that certain types of change are unidirectional. This hypothesis takes many forms, but is probably most widely associated with historical cross-linguistic, typological work, much of it devoted to the correlations among changes in meaning and morphosyntax known as grammaticalisation (see e.g. Greenberg 1978; Lehmann 1995 [1982]; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994). Critics of the hypothesis have pointed out that unidirectionality is not exceptionless and can be reversed (Joseph and Janda 1988; Newmeyer 1998; Lass 2000, among others). Being social as well as cognitive, and subject to contingencies such as production, perception, transmission and social evaluation, no change is likely to be exceptionless. Unidirectionality is a strong tendency manifested by particular sets of changes. The present study is a further contribution to the debate on unidirectionality, with focus on evidence for it in semantic change. The hypothesis is that intersubjectification, in the sense of the development of meanings that encode speaker/writers’ attention to the cognitive stances and social identities of addressees, arises out of and depends crucially on subjectification. Schematically, subjectification > intersubjectification, not intersubjectification> subjectification. This is a semasiological hypothesis about constraints on the kind of changes that individual lexemes may undergo. It also has implications for onomasiological constraints on shifts of meaning from one conceptual domain to another, e.g. from the domain of spatial position to politeness marker in Japanese, but not vice versa.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aijmer, Karin. 1986. ‘Why is actually so popular in spoken English?’, in Gunnel Tottie and Ingegard Bäcklund (eds.), English in speech and writing: a symposium. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 119–29
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1997. ‘Negative conditionality, subjectification, and conditional reasoning’, in Angeliki Athenasiadou and René Dirven (eds.), On conditionals again. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 323–54
Benveniste, Emile. 1971 [1958]. ‘Subjectivity in language’, in Problems in general linguistics, trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables: FL: University of Miami Press, 223–30 (originally published as ‘De la subjectivité dans le langage’, in Problèmes de linguistique générale, Paris: Gallimard, 1958, 258–66)
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell
Blank, Andreas and Peter Koch (eds.). 1999. Historical semantics and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Bréal, Michel. 1964 [1900]. Semantics: studies in the science of meaning, trans. Mrs Henry Cust. New York: Dover
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: grammaticalization and discourse function. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Brinton, Laurel J. 1998. ‘‘The flowers are lovely; only, they have no scent’: the evolution of a pragmatic marker’, in Raimund Borgmeier, Herbert Grabes and Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Historical pragmatics: Anglistentag 1997 Gieβen Proceedings. Gießen: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 9–33
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press
Bühler, Karl. 1990 [1934]. Theory of language: the representational function of language, trans. Donald Fraser Goodwin. Amsterdam: Benjamins (originally published as Sprachtheorie, 1934, Jena: Fischer)
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press
Carey, Kathleen. 1995. ‘Subjectification and the English perfect’, in Stein and Wright (eds.), 83–102
Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas, B. Carlson. 1982. ‘Hearers and speech acts’, Language 58: 332–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasher, Richard. 1995. ‘Grammaticalization in the System of Japanese Predicate Honorifics’, PhD Dissertation, Stanford University
Deutscher, Guy. 1999. ‘The different faces of uniformitarianism’, paper given at the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver
Fillmore, Charles J. 1997 [1971]. Lectures on deixis. Stanford University: CSLI Publications
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. ‘How does a language acquire gender markers?’, in Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson and Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 3. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 249–95
Hanson, Kristin. 1987. ‘On subjectivity and the history of epistemic expressions in English’, in Barbara Need, Eric Schiller and Anna Bosch (eds.), Papers from the 23rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 133–47
Held, Gudrun. 1999. ‘Submission strategies as an expression of the ideology of politeness: reflections on the verbalisation of social power relations’, Pragmatics 9: 21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. ‘On some principles of grammaticization’, in Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: 37–80. Amsterdam: Benjamins
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 1993. Subjectivity in grammar and discourse: theoretical considerations and a case study of Japanese spoken discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins
Jakobson, Roman. 1957. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Russian Language Project
Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda. 1988. ‘The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization’, in M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 193–210
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. ‘The discourse marker well in the history of English’, English Language and Linguistics 1: 91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: a comparative perspective. London: Routledge
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1973. ‘Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: a case study from Japanese’, in Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 377–91
Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. ‘Observations and speculations on subjectivity’, in John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 109–50
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. ‘Subjectification’, Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. ‘Raising and transparency’, Language 71: 1–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. ‘Losing control: grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency’, in Blank and Koch (eds.), 147–75
Lass, Roger. 2000. ‘Remarks on (uni)directionality’, in Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach and Dieter Stein (eds.), Pathways of change: grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 207–27
Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization, Munich: Lincom Europa (originally published as Thoughts on grammaticalization, a programmatic sketch, vol. 1. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 48. Cologne: University of Cologne, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 1982)
Lewin, Bruno (ed.). 1969. Beiträge zum interpersonalen Bezug im Japanischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz
Lyons, John. 1982. ‘Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?’, in Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: studies in deixis and related topics. New York: Wiley, 101–24
Lyons, John. 1994. ‘Subjecthood and subjectivity’, in Marina Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood and subjectivity: the status of the subject in linguistic theory. Paris: Ophrys, 9–17
Matsuo, Hajime. 1961. Taketori monogatari zensyaku [Completely annotated edition of the Taketori Monogatari (mid Tenth Century)]. Tokyo: Musashino Shoin
Maynard, Senko K. 1993. Discourse modality: subjectivity, emotion, and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam: Benjamins
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. BUT, ONLY, JUST: Focusing adverbial change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books
Nordlinger, Rachel and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 1997. ‘Scope and the development of epistemic modality: evidence from ought to’, English Language and Linguistics 1: 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 1998. ‘Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions’, paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Pragmatics, Reims
Onodera, Noriko O. 2000. ‘Development of demo type connectives and na elements: two extremes of Japanese discourse markers’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Mava Jo. 1992. ‘The systematic development of correlated interpersonal and metalinguistic uses in stance adverbs’, Cognitive Linguistics 3: 75–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, Michael J. 1993 [1979]. ‘The conduit metaphor – a case of frame conflict in our language about language’, in Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, 164–201
Rissanen, Matti. 1967. The uses of one in Old and Early Middle English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1990. ‘The principle of intersubjectivity in communication and conversation’, Semiotica 80: 121–51Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2000. ‘Invoking scalarity: the development of in fact’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 7–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dieter and Susan Wright (eds.). 1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation in language. Cambridge University Press
Suzuki, Ryoko. 1998. ‘From a lexical noun to an utterance-final pragmatic particle: wake,’ in Toshio Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers, 67–92
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence adverbials in English: a synchronic and diachronic investigation. Oslo: Novus
Sweetser, Eve V. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press
Tagaki, Ichinosuke, Tomohide Gomi and Susumu Ohno (eds. and annot.). 1957–60. Man'yoosyuu [Man'yoshu, The Ten-Thousand Leaves (before 760 AC)], 4 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. ‘On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change’, Language 57: 33–65Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. ‘Subjectification in grammaticalization’, in Stein and Wright (eds.), 31–54
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1997. ‘Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: the case of promise and threaten’, in Toril Swan and Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 185–210
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999a. ‘The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: a study in subjectification’, in Blank and Koch (eds.), 177–96
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999b. ‘The role of pragmatics in semantic change’, in Jef Verschueren (ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference 2. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 93–102
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press
Tsujimura, Toshiki. 1968. Keigo no Si-teki Kenkyuu [Historical Studies of Japanese Honorifics]. Tokyo: Tokyodo
Yokomichi, Mario and Akira Omote (eds. and annot.). 1960. Yookyoku-syuu [Selected Noh Plays]. Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, series, vol. 40. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×