Religious controversy in English has always been marked by ideologically charged lexicons. Developments in the analysis of machine-readable corpora have enabled more robust conclusions to be drawn about the nature of these vocabularies, relating particular usages to particular confessional orientations. In this paper, part of a long-term research project on the history of English religious vocabulary, an attempt is made to identify “keywords” characteristic of presbyterian, puritan and high Anglican communities of practice within the Church of England. In addition, the paper addresses some methodological and theoretical issues involved in such research, relating to the practice of historical pragmatics.
{"title":"Lexical choices in Early Modern English devotional prose","authors":"Jeremy J. Smith","doi":"10.1075/jhp.00056.smi","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00056.smi","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Religious controversy in English has always been marked by ideologically charged lexicons. Developments in the analysis of machine-readable corpora have enabled more robust conclusions to be drawn about the nature of these vocabularies, relating particular usages to particular confessional orientations. In this paper, part of a long-term research project on the history of English religious vocabulary, an attempt is made to identify “keywords” characteristic of presbyterian, puritan and high Anglican communities of practice within the Church of England. In addition, the paper addresses some methodological and theoretical issues involved in such research, relating to the practice of historical pragmatics.","PeriodicalId":446907,"journal":{"name":"Historical Pragmatics today","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133950817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A variety of forms serve as responses to thanks in Present-day English, albeit infrequently. Such responses minimize the debt incurred by the thanker and serve purposes of negative politeness. The history of responses to thanks has received only brief attention (Jacobsson 2002; Jucker 2020; Taavitsainen and Jucker 2020). Most of the contemporary responses to thanks (e.g., no problem and you bet) are of quite recent origin. Those that “express pleasure” (the pleasure was mine) appear in the late-nineteenth century, while those that express “verbal acknowledgment” (all right, okay) appear in the twentieth century. The increase of minimizing responses is consonant with a trend toward negative politeness, while the loss of the deferential forms found in Early Modern English (your humble servant) reflects the rise of camaraderie politeness. Responses to thanks have also undergone “attenuation” (Jucker 2019), evidenced by the appearance of short forms (welcome), the rise of verbal acknowledgment types, and the increasing use of such responses as conversational closers.
在现代英语中，有各种各样的形式可以作为对感谢的回应，尽管不常见。这样的回答可以将感谢者欠下的债降到最低，并起到消极礼貌的作用。对感谢的反应的历史只受到短暂的关注(jacobson 2002;张超2020;Taavitsainen and juker 2020)。大多数当代对“谢谢”的回应(例如，no problem and you bet)都是最近才出现的。那些“表达快乐”的词(我的快乐)出现在19世纪晚期，而那些表达“口头承认”的词(好吧，好吧)出现在20世纪。最小化回应的增加与消极礼貌的趋势是一致的，而早期现代英语中恭敬形式(你卑微的仆人)的消失反映了友爱礼貌的兴起。对“感谢”的回应也经历了“衰减”(Jucker 2019)，这可以从简短形式(welcome)的出现、口头感谢类型的兴起以及越来越多地使用这类回应作为对话结尾来证明。
{"title":"Responding to thanks","authors":"L. Brinton","doi":"10.1075/jhp.00052.bri","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00052.bri","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A variety of forms serve as responses to thanks in Present-day English, albeit infrequently. Such responses\u0000 minimize the debt incurred by the thanker and serve purposes of negative politeness. The history of responses to thanks has\u0000 received only brief attention (Jacobsson 2002; Jucker 2020; Taavitsainen and Jucker 2020). Most of the contemporary\u0000 responses to thanks (e.g., no problem and you bet) are of quite recent origin. Those that\u0000 “express pleasure” (the pleasure was mine) appear in the late-nineteenth century, while those that express\u0000 “verbal acknowledgment” (all right, okay) appear in the twentieth century. The increase of minimizing responses\u0000 is consonant with a trend toward negative politeness, while the loss of the deferential forms found in Early Modern English\u0000 (your humble servant) reflects the rise of camaraderie politeness. Responses to thanks have also undergone\u0000 “attenuation” (Jucker 2019), evidenced by the appearance of short forms\u0000 (welcome), the rise of verbal acknowledgment types, and the increasing use of such responses as\u0000 conversational closers.","PeriodicalId":446907,"journal":{"name":"Historical Pragmatics today","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132854935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the Late Modern English period, several expressions arose with concessive ‘despite what might be expected’ meaning, among them anyway, nonetheless and all the same (Lenker 2010). The topic of this paper is the rise of the specialized concessive construction “but (be) 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 coha). 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 clmet3.0 and coha, 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.
在晚期现代英语时期，有几个表达带有让步的“尽管可能是预期的”意思，其中包括anyway, anyway和all the same (Lenker 2010)。本文的主题是“but (be) X all The same”这一专业让步结构的兴起。在完整的修辞公式中，它是其中的一部分，X最初被表示为没有属性Y，但仍然有足够的其他相关属性可以归类为X，比如“……恐惧”。这不是在警察国家看到的翻白眼、颤抖的恐惧，但它仍然是恐惧”(1963 coha)。在这里，作者承认尽管Y存在恐惧(见Horn[1991]关于“冗余信息”)，并邀请收件人回顾性地重新解释最初的X(见Haselow[2013]关于“最终粒子”的功能)。使用主要来自clmet3.0和coha的数据，我从历时结构语法的角度讨论了这种结构的约定俗成，并与Goldberg(2004)等人进行了辩论;Cappelle(2017)和Finkbeiner(2019)认为语用学应该在构式语法中发挥比过去更大的作用。
{"title":"The rise of a concessive “category reassessment” construction","authors":"E. Traugott","doi":"10.1075/jhp.00051.tra","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00051.tra","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the Late Modern English period, several expressions arose with concessive ‘despite what might be expected’\u0000 meaning, among them anyway, nonetheless and all the same (Lenker 2010). The topic of this paper is the rise of the specialized concessive construction “but (be) X all\u0000 the same”. In the full rhetorical formula of which it is a part, X is initially represented as not having properties Y but\u0000 nevertheless as having sufficient other relevant properties to be classified as X, as in “…fear. It is not the eye-rolling,\u0000 quaking fear seen in police states, but it is fear all the same” (1963 coha). Here the writer concedes that there is fear\u0000 despite Y (see Horn [1991] on “redundant information”) and invites the addressee to\u0000 reinterpret the initial X retrospectively (see Haselow [2013] on functions of “final\u0000 particles”). Using data mainly from clmet3.0 and coha, I discuss the conventionalization of this construction in\u0000 terms of Diachronic Construction Grammar and argue alongside, for example, Goldberg\u0000 (2004); Cappelle (2017) and Finkbeiner\u0000 (2019) that pragmatics should be given a larger role in construction grammar than has often been the case in the\u0000 past.","PeriodicalId":446907,"journal":{"name":"Historical Pragmatics today","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114821883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The idea that conceptual meaning in discourse could be identified in constellations of lexical co-occurrences in a particular “universe” of discourse was key in guiding the computational historical semantic–pragmatic work conducted in the Linguistic dna project. The project mapped prominent lexical co-occurrences across the two hundred years of publications in Early English Books Online (eebo-tcp; Text Creation Partnership edition), yielding concept models – constellations of non-adjacent lemmas that consistently co-occur across spans of up to 100 tokens. The goal was to map meaning onto concept models as “discursive concepts”, using encyclopaedic knowledge, pragmatic analysis and context. The first question concerns the effectiveness of making early hypotheses about the discursive meaning of concept models based on the inferred connections between the lemmas in a quad constellation. The second question is whether the meaning of frequent, apparently stable concept models changes upon their closer scrutiny in the discourses they lead us into. A reader familiar with the particular universe of discourse in which these quads occur, and with the social, historical, literary and philosophical traditions, and the context that they occupy, might be effectively primed by their encyclopaedic knowledge to hypothesise this discursive meaning. This paper demonstrates the efficacy of hypothesis building using encyclopaedic knowledge and pragmatic analysis to interpret optimally relevant concept models.
{"title":"Looking for concepts in Early Modern English","authors":"S. Fitzmaurice","doi":"10.1075/jhp.00057.fit","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00057.fit","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The idea that conceptual meaning in discourse could be identified in constellations of lexical co-occurrences in a particular “universe” of discourse was key in guiding the computational historical semantic–pragmatic work conducted in the Linguistic dna project. The project mapped prominent lexical co-occurrences across the two hundred years of publications in Early English Books Online (eebo-tcp; Text Creation Partnership edition), yielding concept models – constellations of non-adjacent lemmas that consistently co-occur across spans of up to 100 tokens. The goal was to map meaning onto concept models as “discursive concepts”, using encyclopaedic knowledge, pragmatic analysis and context.\u0000The first question concerns the effectiveness of making early hypotheses about the discursive meaning of concept models based on the inferred connections between the lemmas in a quad constellation. The second question is whether the meaning of frequent, apparently stable concept models changes upon their closer scrutiny in the discourses they lead us into. A reader familiar with the particular universe of discourse in which these quads occur, and with the social, historical, literary and philosophical traditions, and the context that they occupy, might be effectively primed by their encyclopaedic knowledge to hypothesise this discursive meaning. This paper demonstrates the efficacy of hypothesis building using encyclopaedic knowledge and pragmatic analysis to interpret optimally relevant concept models.","PeriodicalId":446907,"journal":{"name":"Historical Pragmatics today","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128707866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article traces medical book reviews up to 1800 in the first scientific periodical, The Philosophical Transactions (pt 1665–), and the first general magazine, The Gentleman’s Magazine (gm 1665–1922), within the frame of genre theory, focusing on polite and impolite speech acts. pt readers formed a close network of Royal Society members, while gm attracted a large and more heterogeneous readership. The method employed is qualitative discourse analysis in its sociohistorical context. Two different lines of development emerge. The first issue of pt contains a book review that set a model genre script by surveying the contents and providing a concise positive evaluation at the end. gm published few book reviews at first but their number increased towards 1800. pt keeps to the positive end of evaluation with discreet criticism, while gm speech acts range from praising compliments to aggressive insults. The former trend goes back to book advertisements and the latter to scientific disputes; but in general, polite society conventions prevail in both publications.
{"title":"Medical book reviews 1665–1800","authors":"I. Taavitsainen","doi":"10.1075/jhp.00055.taa","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00055.taa","url":null,"abstract":"This article traces medical book reviews up to 1800 in the first scientific periodical, The Philosophical Transactions (pt 1665–), and the first general magazine, The Gentleman’s Magazine (gm 1665–1922), within the frame of genre theory, focusing on polite and impolite speech acts. pt readers formed a close network of Royal Society members, while gm attracted a large and more heterogeneous readership. The method employed is qualitative discourse analysis in its sociohistorical context. Two different lines of development emerge. The first issue of pt contains a book review that set a model genre script by surveying the contents and providing a concise positive evaluation at the end. gm published few book reviews at first but their number increased towards 1800. pt keeps to the positive end of evaluation with discreet criticism, while gm speech acts range from praising compliments to aggressive insults. The former trend goes back to book advertisements and the latter to scientific disputes; but in general, polite society conventions prevail in both publications.","PeriodicalId":446907,"journal":{"name":"Historical Pragmatics today","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124239053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Interjections have been studied for all periods in the history of English, ranging from the study of Old English exclamations such as hwaet (Brinton 2017) to the pragmatic functions of forms such as oops in Present Day English (Lutzky and Kehoe 2017). The Early Modern English (EModE) period represents a turning point as it witnessed an increase in dialogic and speech-related text types, including drama comedy and trial proceedings. Nevertheless, despite recent advances in the compilation and especially the sociopragmatic annotation of corpora, EModE pragmatic markers have not been studied extensively over the last decade. This article addresses this gap by offering an investigation into the sociopragmatic nature of interjections in EModE drama comedy. It is based on the sociopragmatically annotated Drama Corpus which includes a total of 242,561 words from the period 1500 to 1760. Taking a data-driven, form-to-function mapping approach, this study explores the use of interjections in the Drama Corpus with a focus on their distribution according to sociopragmatic variables. The aim of this study is to contribute to reaching a more comprehensive understanding of pragmatic marker use in EModE.
在英语历史的各个时期，人们都对感叹词进行了研究，从对古英语感叹词的研究，如hwaet (Brinton 2017)，到现代英语中感叹词的语用功能，如oops (Lutzky and Kehoe 2017)。早期现代英语(EModE)时期是一个转折点，因为它见证了对话和言语相关文本类型的增加，包括戏剧、喜剧和审判程序。然而，尽管最近在语料库的编译，特别是社会语用注释方面取得了进展，EModE语用标记在过去十年中并没有得到广泛的研究。本文通过对EModE戏剧喜剧中感叹词的社会语用性质的调查来解决这一差距。它是基于社会语用注释的戏剧语料库，其中包括从1500年到1760年的242561个单词。采用数据驱动的形式到功能映射方法，本研究探讨了戏剧语料库中感叹词的使用，重点关注了它们根据社会语用变量的分布。本研究的目的是为了更全面地理解EModE中语用标记的使用。
{"title":"The sociopragmatic nature of interjections in Early Modern English drama comedy","authors":"Ursula Lutzky","doi":"10.1075/jhp.00054.lut","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00054.lut","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Interjections have been studied for all periods in the history of English, ranging from the study of Old English\u0000 exclamations such as hwaet (Brinton 2017) to the pragmatic functions\u0000 of forms such as oops in Present Day English (Lutzky and Kehoe 2017).\u0000 The Early Modern English (EModE) period represents a turning point as it witnessed an increase in dialogic and speech-related text\u0000 types, including drama comedy and trial proceedings. Nevertheless, despite recent advances in the compilation and especially the\u0000 sociopragmatic annotation of corpora, EModE pragmatic markers have not been studied extensively over the last decade. This article\u0000 addresses this gap by offering an investigation into the sociopragmatic nature of interjections in EModE drama comedy. It is based\u0000 on the sociopragmatically annotated Drama Corpus which includes a total of 242,561 words from the period 1500 to 1760. Taking a\u0000 data-driven, form-to-function mapping approach, this study explores the use of interjections in the Drama Corpus\u0000 with a focus on their distribution according to sociopragmatic variables. The aim of this study is to contribute to reaching a\u0000 more comprehensive understanding of pragmatic marker use in EModE.","PeriodicalId":446907,"journal":{"name":"Historical Pragmatics today","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132127775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jonathan Culpeper, Samuel J. Oliver, Vittorio Tantucci
Recently, it has been proposed that (im)politeness in interaction today is governed in large part by a Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity (Culpeper and Tantucci 2021). This paper investigates whether politeness reciprocity works similarly in early modern English – specifically, in the plays of Shakespeare. Focussing on thanking behaviours, the questions of whether politeness reciprocity can be detected, and, if so, how social status might influence the nature of reciprocity, are addressed. The first part of the paper establishes that Early Modern English politeness behaviours were being discussed in terms associated with reciprocity (e.g., metaphors relating to balance and financial/commercial transactions). Then, all the instances of the two main thanking formula patterns (the verbal first person pronoun + thanks + second person pronoun and the nominal thanks) were extracted from thirty-eight plays attributed wholly or substantially to Shakespeare, and coded for a number of variables, including the weightiness of the gift for which thanks has been given, the amount of effort expended in performing thanks, and the social statuses of the Thanker and Thankee. The results show that reciprocity does govern thanking behaviours, and that social status licences imbalances in those behaviours. The paper also touches on conventionalisation.
{"title":"Politeness reciprocity in Shakespeare’s dialogue","authors":"Jonathan Culpeper, Samuel J. Oliver, Vittorio Tantucci","doi":"10.1075/jhp.00053.cul","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00053.cul","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Recently, it has been proposed that (im)politeness in interaction today is governed in large part by a Principle\u0000 of (Im)politeness Reciprocity (Culpeper and Tantucci 2021). This paper investigates\u0000 whether politeness reciprocity works similarly in early modern English – specifically, in the plays of Shakespeare. Focussing on\u0000 thanking behaviours, the questions of whether politeness reciprocity can be detected, and, if so, how social status might\u0000 influence the nature of reciprocity, are addressed. The first part of the paper establishes that Early Modern English politeness\u0000 behaviours were being discussed in terms associated with reciprocity (e.g., metaphors relating to balance and financial/commercial\u0000 transactions). Then, all the instances of the two main thanking formula patterns (the verbal first person pronoun +\u0000 thanks + second person pronoun and the nominal thanks) were extracted from\u0000 thirty-eight plays attributed wholly or substantially to Shakespeare, and coded for a number of variables, including the\u0000 weightiness of the gift for which thanks has been given, the amount of effort expended in performing thanks, and the social\u0000 statuses of the Thanker and Thankee. The results show that reciprocity does govern thanking behaviours, and that social status\u0000 licences imbalances in those behaviours. The paper also touches on conventionalisation.","PeriodicalId":446907,"journal":{"name":"Historical Pragmatics today","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131404942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：