1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Historical Pragmatics
  4. Volume 22, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In the Late Modern English period, several expressions arose with concessive ‘despite what might be expected’ meaning, among them and (Lenker 2010). The topic of this paper is the rise of the specialized concessive construction “but () X all the same”. In the full rhetorical formula of which it is a part, X is initially represented as not having properties Y but nevertheless as having sufficient other relevant properties to be classified as X, as in “…fear. It is not the eye-rolling, quaking fear seen in police states, but it is fear all the same” (1963 ). Here the writer concedes that there is fear despite Y (see Horn [1991] on “redundant information”) and invites the addressee to reinterpret the initial X retrospectively (see Haselow [2013] on functions of “final particles”). Using data mainly from 3.0 and , I discuss the conventionalization of this construction in terms of Diachronic Construction Grammar and argue alongside, for example, Goldberg (2004)Cappelle (2017) and Finkbeiner (2019) that pragmatics should be given a larger role in construction grammar than has often been the case in the past.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00051.tra
2022-10-13
2023-09-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00051.tra
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. clmet 3.0. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts 1710–1920, version 3.0 (clmet3.0)compiled byHendrik De Smet, Hans-Jürgen Diller and Jukka Tyrkkö. Leuven University. See: https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_0.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  2. coca Corpus of Contemporary American English 1990–2019 Compiled byMark Davies. Brigham Young University. ReleaseMarch 2020. See: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
     [Google Scholar]
  3. coha Corpus of Historical American English 1820–2019 Compiled byMark Davies. Brigham Young University. Release 2021 See: https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/
     [Google Scholar]
  4. eebo Early English Books Online 1470s to 1690s Corpus created as part of the Text Creation Partnership. See: https://www.english-corpora.org/eebo/
     [Google Scholar]
  5. oed Oxford English Dictionary 2018 Oxford: Oxford University Press. See: www.oed.com/
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot
    1983 L’argumentation dans la langue [‘Argumentation in Language’]. Brussels: Mardaga.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea
    (eds) 2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan
    1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blakemore, Diana
    2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, Bert
    2017 “What’s Pragmatics Doing Outside Constructions?” InIlse Depraetere and Raphael Salkie (eds), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, 115–151. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, William
    2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, Charles J. and Colin F. Baker
    2001 “Frame Semantics for Text Understanding”. Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop, 59–63. Pittsburgh: NAACL.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Mary Catherine O’Connor
    1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions”. Language64 (3): 501–538. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  14. Finkbeiner, Rita
    2019 “Reflections on the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar”. InRita Finkbeiner (ed), On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar, special issue ofConstructions and Frames11 (2): 171–192. 10.1075/cf.00027.fin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00027.fin [Google Scholar]
  15. Gast, Volker
    2019 “A Corpus-based Comparative Study of Concessive Connectives in English, German and Spanish: The Distribution of Although, Obwohl and Aunque in the Europarl Corpus”. InÓscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Adriana Cruz and Laura Nadal (eds), Empirical Studies on the Construction of Discourse, 151–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.305.06gas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.06gas [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2004 “Pragmatics and Argument Structure”. InLaurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 538–561. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 “Constructionist Approaches”. InThomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 15–31. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. 2012 “The Semantics of Pragmatic Expressions”. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed), Cognitive Pragmatics, 589–613. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214215.587
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.587 [Google Scholar]
  22. Haselow, Alexander
    2013 “Arguing for a Wide Conception of Grammar: The Case of Final Particles in Spoken Discourse”. Folia Linguistica47 (2): 375–424. 10.1515/flin.2013.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.015 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2019 “Discourse Marker Sequences: Insights into the Serial Order of Communicative Tasks in Real-time Turn Production”. Journal of Pragmatics146 (1): 1–18. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Horn, Laurence R.
    1991 “Given as New: When Redundant Affirmation Isn’t”. Journal of Pragmatics15 (4): 313–336. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90034‑U
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90034-U [Google Scholar]
  25. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jacobs, Andreas and Andreas H. Jucker
    1995 “The Historical Perspective in Pragmatics”. InAndreas H. Jucker (ed), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.35.04jac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.35.04jac [Google Scholar]
  27. Jucker, Andreas H.
    (ed) 1995 Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.35
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.35 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2017 “Pragmatics and Discourse”. InLaurel J. Brinton and Alexander Bergs (eds), The History of English: Historical Outlines from Sound to Text, 165–184. (Volume1.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110525281‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110525281-009 [Google Scholar]
  29. König, Ekkehard
    1986 “Conditionals, Concessive Conditionals and Concessives: Areas of Contrast, Overlap and Neutralization”. InElizabeth C. Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly and Charles A. Ferguson (eds), On Conditionals, 229–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2020 “Concessive Markers and Concessive Meaning: Taking Stock of What We Know and Do Not Know”. InSabrina Zeaiter and Peter Franke (eds), Pioniergeist, Ausdauer, Leidenschaft: Festschrift zur Ehren von Prof. Dr. Jürgen Handke [‘Pioneering Spirit, Perseverance, Passion: Festschrift in Honor of Prof. Dr. Jurgen Handke’], 53–68. Open publication server, Philipps-Universiteit Marburg. ISBN978-3-8185-0556-1; 10.17192/es2020.0018
     https://doi.org/10.17192/es2020.0018 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lenker, Ursula
    2010 Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110216066
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216066 [Google Scholar]
  32. Michaelis, Laura A.
    2019 “Constructions Are Patterns and So Are Fixed Expressions”. InBeatrix Busse and Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept, 193–220. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110596656‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596656-008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mulder, Jean and Sandra A. Thompson
    2008 “The Grammaticalization of But as a Final Particle in Conversation”. InRitva Laury (ed). Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.09mul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.09mul [Google Scholar]
  34. Nevalainen, Terttu
    1990 “Modeling Functional Differentiation and Function Loss: The Case of ‘But’”. InSylvia Adamson, Vivien Law, Nigel Vincent and Susan Wright (eds), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 337–355. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.65.20nev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.65.20nev [Google Scholar]
  35. Petré, Peter
    2019 “How Constructions are Born: The Role of Patterns in the Constructionalization of be going to INF”. InBeatrix Busse and Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept, 157–192. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110596656‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596656-007 [Google Scholar]
  36. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
    1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2017 “A Framework for Understanding Linguistic Entrenchment and its Psychological Foundations”. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How we Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, 9–35. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1037/15969‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schwenter, Scott A.
    2000 “Viewpoints and Polysemy: Linking Adversative and Causal Meanings of Discourse Markers”. InElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann (eds), Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, 257–281. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.3.257
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.3.257 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schwenter, Scott A. and Richard Waltereit
    2010 “Presupposition Accommodation and Language Change: From Additivity to Speech-act Marking”. InKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 75–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102.2.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.2.75 [Google Scholar]
  40. Taavitsainen, Irma and Susan Fitzmaurice
    2007 “Historical Pragmatics: What It Is and How to Do It”. InSusan Fitzmaurice and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Methods in Historical Pragmatics, 11–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197822.11
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197822.11 [Google Scholar]
  41. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2004 “Historical Pragmatics”. InLaurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 538–561. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2019 “Constructional Pattern-development in Language Change”. InBeatrix Busse and Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept, 125–155. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110596656‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596656-006 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2022a Ten lectures on a Diachronic Constructionalist Approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004507050
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004507050 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2022b Discourse Structuring Markers in English: A Historical Constructionalist Perspective on Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.33
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.33 [Google Scholar]
  45. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Trousdale, Graeme and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2021 “Rethinking Constructionalization: The History of by the way”. Paper presented atISLE 6, Joensuu, June.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00051.tra
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): concessives; Diachronic Construction Grammar; procedurals; redundancy; rhetorical strategy

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error