Journal of Historical Pragmatics - Volume 5, Issue 1, 2004

In Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Conversational Implicature, Levinson (2000) argues that in historical as well as synchronic work there is need to distinguish three types of pragmatic principles, which he labels the Q-, M-, and I- “heuristics”. This is in contrast to Horn (1984), who argues for two types of “principles”: Q- and R-. In the present paper I argue that the proposed distinction between Q- and M- Heuristics is not necessary or consistently maintainable. Two of Levinson’s examples are considered: the development of anaphora (reflexive -self in English), and constraints on innovations in word formation (e.g. informer/informant). The conclusion is that a single heuristic (Q) is adequate, as proposed by Horn.

This article deals with the roles and functions of dialect, Dutch and French for Flemish upper class writers in the 19th century. It argues against the common opinion that the linguistic situation at that time in Flanders can be characterized by rigid dichotomies such as formal French versus informal dialectal/regional Dutch, and/or upper class French versus middle and lower class (dialectal) Dutch. Analyses of original upper class documents from various archives in the town of Bruges lead to the assertion that the actual choices between the available linguistic resources were to a considerable extent dependent on contextual and pragmatic considerations. Examples taken from town council records, high society correspondence and election propaganda will illustrate the close link between variety choice and the wish to include/exclude certain social groups in distinct communicative settings.

Taking a combined theoretical and empirical approach, this essay studies the rhetorical implications of speech-reporting strategies in medieval East Slavic hagiography and homiletics. The author argues for a pragmatic approach to the study of a particular rhetorical concept: enargeia ‘the power of language to create a vivid presence of that which is set forth in words’. The first part of the article outlines the constitutive characteristics of enargeia, based on its treatment in rhetorical handbooks of Classical and Late Antiquity and on the rhetorical practice. Part two moves on to discuss reported speech as one possible field of study for an investigation of the “pragmatics of enargeia” at work in medieval texts, with a view to demonstrating the relevance of central pragmatic categories for the study of what one could call “enargetic rhetoric”. Examples are taken from Nestor of the Caves’ Life of Feodosij (eleventh century) and Kirill of Turov’s sermons (late twelfth century).

This paper investigates pragmatic factors affecting the development of the focus particle lian in Mandarin Chinese. An analysis of lian’s evolution in historical texts demonstrates that lian’s semantic transformation from concrete activity to abstract grammatical meaning involved two major processes: metaphorization and inferencing. More importantly, this study provides evidence to show that due to the isolating characteristic, 1) Chinese does not restrict metaphorization to any particular category of lexical items, as Indo-European languages do (cf. Heine 1993); 2) different kinds of inferencing have affected lian in its process of semantic change and grammaticalization as opposed to the claim that different kinds of inferencing occur with different types of lexical items (cf. Traugott and König 1991); and 3) both divergence and desemantization are the results of lian’s grammaticalization. Unlike similar cases in Indo-European languages, lian has not become increasingly morphologized as it becomes more grammaticalized.

English has a rich supply of grammatical devices used to express “stance”: epistemic or attitudinal comments on propositional information. The present paper explores historical change in the preferred devices used to mark stance. By examining the entire system of stance devices, the study attempts to investigate the underlying patterns of change. Three major patterns are possible: 1) changes in social norms could result in speakers and writers expressing stance meanings to differing extents in different periods; 2) the grammatical system for the expression of stance could undergo change, showing an overall decline in the use of some grammatical devices, replaced by an increase in the use of other devices; 3) the patterns of use could undergo sharper register diversification over time, with particular stance devices taking on more specialized uses in particular registers. These possibilities are explored through corpus-based analysis of the written and speech-based registers in the ARCHER corpus, tracking the patterns of change across the past three centuries.

This study focuses on the construction of an amorous relationship in Chaucer’s poetry. It is observed that threats are recurring speech acts in Chaucer’s wooing scenes. Such threats are conditional and coercive in nature, having a bearing on the role and exercise of free will. A speech act definition of a threat is offered in the article. The definition is based on John Searle’s analytic model and threats in wooing scenes are treated as commissives, given their conditional nature. Such threats are also often playful in varying degrees. Drawing on a number of examples from Chaucer’s major poems, the article examines the nature of playfulness and the question of how it is grounded in the content and the context of a threat. The issue of a lady’s consent is framed in the article by the larger background of the partly conflicting Germanic and Roman cultural traditions both impacting Chaucerian England.

Constructions with let me (e.g. let me see, let me tell you, let me think what to do next) are usually analysed as so-called periphrastic imperatives. This paper shows that most of the examples found in Middle English and Early Modern English corpora cannot be understood in this sense but must be seen as constructions with the full verb let with the meaning “permit” or “cause”. While these constructions are still imperatives and in most cases directives, they are different in that they are focused on the addressee and — apparently — on the addressee’s approval. The paper traces the spread of these let-me constructions, their functions as strategies of politeness and their relationship to other so-called indirect directives in the history of English.