Journal of Historical Pragmatics - Volume 21, Issue 2, 2020

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.

This paper examines the synchronic competition and diachronic substitution of three Latin temporal expressions: tum, tunc (‘at that time’, ‘then’), and later dumque (originally, ‘while-and’), and its Old Italian outcome dunque (‘then’). Besides providing a new path of development and a new etymology for Italian dunque, we describe in detail the steps by which these forms gradually replaced one another and examine the factors at play in their renewal, showing that such forms all display a similar inference-driven functional expansion from propositional to discourse-organizational meanings. However, their subsequent development led to a functional similarity that is only partial, as is often the case in semantic–pragmatic cycles. While discussing the nature of this cycle, we focus on the speaker’s role in this type of change, which in our view can be summarized in the speaker’s cyclical application of recurrent functional principles: phonetic efficiency, analogy, and regularity in semantic change.

This paper focuses on the formal and functional development of Italian allora (< Latin ad illa(m) hora(m) [‘in that hour’]) ‘at that time, then, well’ considering its polyfunctionality and its relationship with the functional space of dunque (‘then, therefore’). The developments of both forms revolve around their functional domains as connectives and as discourse markers which over the centuries have shown different degrees of functional overlap. Even though the two forms show a fairly stable functional overlap, since the twentieth century allora has begun to replace dunque with increasing frequency in many discourse marker functions. This substitution can be described in terms of a semantic–pragmatic cycle, while the formal development of allora from Latin ad illa(m) hora(m) is an instance of a morphological cycle.

This study addresses the evolution of the Sicilian discourse marker mentri to explore the concept of cyclicity in semantic–pragmatic change. Stemming from Latin dŭm ĭntĕrim (‘while, in the meantime’), the temporal conjunction develops – like its Romance cognates – an adversative function meaning ‘whereas’, which further evolves from an oppositional to a counter-expectational contrast value meaning ‘though’. The latter serves as a bridging context for the emergence of discourse-pragmatic uses and is examined below. Mentri evolves as discourse marker: formally, it gains greater syntactic and positional independence, and it increases in scope; functionally, it displays both textual and interpersonal values. In its overall path, mentri shows a cyclical change in respect to the adversative function: oppositional contrast emerges out of the temporal meaning, it then develops into counter-expectation, and it eventually fades into the discourse-pragmatic values. The rise of mentri as a discourse marker is thus interpreted as a case of cyclicity from a semasiological perspective.

In this paper, I discuss a type of construction that is rarely if ever mentioned in connection with diachronic cyclicity: wh-interrogative marking. In particular, I shall compare sentential negation with wh-marking in French and point to interesting commonalities between the prototypical diachronic cycle (negation) and interrogative marking. The pragmatic contrast between question types in Old French is shown to be mirrored in a similar contrast in Modern French, with the previously “strong” est-ce que interrogative now being a weaker one. In addition, I argue that reversal of anaphoric direction is another shared feature in the history of negation and of the est-ce que interrogative.

In this article, which examines the cyclic evolution of future markers in Western Romance (mainly French and Spanish), I make use of the “satellite model” in the version proposed by Koch and Oesterreicher (1996) to capture the complex interplay between functional change, synchronic variation and sociolinguistic evolution. This model conceives of linguistic cycles as push-chains. Thus, I will argue, young future markers originally arise from argumentative patterns that are aimed at validating announcements concerning the speaker’s projected actions. The rationale behind these mechanisms is pragmatic efficiency rather than the functioning of the language system itself. Thus, linguistic systems usually contain more items than are technically needed to keep the language system operative. In the categories of the satellite model, a certain number of younger constructions (“satellites”) exist side-by-side with a canonical construction (i.e., a functionally and sociolinguistically unmarked item), which one of the former may eventually oust from its privileged position. As I will show by sketching the evolution of the numerous future markers of peninsular Spanish from the seventeenth to the twentieth century, this perspective allows a fresh look at the evolution of cycles. More often than not, the competition between the canonical form and its satellites does not cause the former’s replacement by the latter; rather, it normally ends with the obsolescence of one the satellites involved. The eventual replacement of the canonical form by a satellite – that is, the completion of a full cycle – represents a very special (and relatively rare) case.

This paper explores novel ways to consider semantic–pragmatic cycles using a dual strategy: an inwards strategy, whereby the distinctive traits of a pragmatic cycle are established, and an outwards strategy, whereby the categories that delimit semantic–pragmatic cycles are described. The result of this exploration is the distinction between “pragmatic cycle”, “replication”, “concomitance” and “paradigmatic increase” as four different yet related processes. In addition, this study integrates Construction Grammar into the description of each process and shows that the study of semantic–pragmatic cycles can benefit from a constructional approach, adopting Traugott and Trousdale’s (2013) and Traugott’s (2018) models, and including concepts from European structuralism, particularly the notions of “paradigm”, “diasystem” and “functional language” (“lengua funcional”).