No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
From textual level to enunciative level in the grammaticalization process: The function of context
Abstract
This paper analyses the function of linguistic contexts in the grammaticalization process. Within the theoretical framework of the "evolution in three levels" (propositional level, textual level, pragmatic level), we underline the importance and the specificity of thematic constructions from a diachronic point of view. Certain expressions evolve first from linked adverbial to a thematic function, then to a topic function. This is exemplified by the study of two samples: the evolution of topic markers like quant à, en ce qui concerne, and the evolution of the subordinator dans la mesure où.
This article analyzes in detail the emergence of topic markers in Clasical French : en/pour ce qui conceme, en/pour ce qui regarde, et en/pour ce qui touche (lit. "in/for what concems, looks, touches", all meaning "conceming"). These constructions followed the usual evolutionary path, from linked adverbial to thematic function, then to topic function. The author examines in detail the contexts in which these constructions undergo reanalysis, and focuses on two criteria, morpho-syntax and topic/comment. It can be shown that the opposition between en and pour is meaningful : pour is found indifferently for all uses, while those containing en are usually restricted to intrapredicative postverbal uses.
The discourse contexts are analyzed in which clause-internal in fact developed pragmaticalized meanings and came to invoke scalarity in two domains: epistemic sentence adverb (IPAdv), and additive discourse marker (DM). In both these uses, in fact tightens word to world fit (Powell 1992): the world of epistemic belief in the case of the IPAdv, the world of evaluative, rhetorical perspective in the case of the DM. The analysis therefore provides further evidence for (i) pragmatic ambiguities across these worlds (Sweetser 1990), (ii) subjectification that shifts perspectives from interpersonal (adversative) to personal evaluation (Traugott 1989), (iii) the pragmatic relationship between scalarity, adversativity and additivity (Schwenter 1999). The different orientations of the two uses suggest they are polysemous, not contextually bound.
Discussions of modality (e.g. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca, 1994; Coates, 1983; Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986; Traugott, 1989) typically center around two issues: deonticity vs. epistemicity, and degree of subjectivity. Using diachronic evidence from the quasi-modal ought to, this paper argues for the need to recognize a third, crosscutting these two: narrow vs. wide scope. We argue that the epistemic use of ought to developed out of a wide-scope deontic construction, in which the modal was used with deontic meaning, but with propositional scope (contra Bybee, 1988). Rather than attributing an obligation to the subject (i.e. having narrow scope), the modal in this construction makes an assertion about the proposition as a whole, like an epistemic. However, such ought to constructions are found some four hundred years before the first epistemic examples, and thus can be shown to be distinct from epistemic uses (contra Gamon, 1994).(Received February 06 1997)(Revised May 14 1997)
The paper discusses the process of adverbialization in English, focusing on one type of adverb, subject-modifier adverbs such as sadly, thoughtfully and pinkly. It is also shown that the -ly suffix in English (unlike its cognates in the other Germanic languages) has become an extremely versatile adverb suffix. Finally, it is argued that in English, the manner adverb category is prototypical, whereas other adverb types, notably subject-modifier adverbs, are less central adverbs.