{"title":"Christian Kay and Kathryn Allan (eds.). 2015. English Historical Semantics","authors":"Seth Mehl","doi":"10.1075/JHP.18.1.08MEH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.18.1.08MEH","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"152-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.18.1.08MEH","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48935552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Over the past two centuries, the use of the adjective grand underwent a specific semantic expansion in Irish English. Apart from the meaning of ‘displaying grandeur’, the adjective came to mean ‘fine’, ‘alright’ and ‘in good form’, both as an expression of the speaker’s situation and as a reference to that of the addressee. This development can be shown to represent a case of subjectification, as described seminally by Elizabeth Traugott in various publications (e.g., Traugott 1995 ), with the element of intersubjectification arising somewhat later ( Traugott 2003 ). Through the examination of various texts, this paper examines the diachronic development of grand in its various uses and the rise of the Irish English extension with a consideration of possible precursors and parallels in other varieties. The subjective and intersubjective uses of grand are labelled “approving grand ” and “reassuring grand ” respectively and are shown to be in keeping with other features of Irish discourse structure and pragmatics.
{"title":"The pragmatics of grand in Irish English","authors":"R. Hickey","doi":"10.1075/JHP.18.1.04HIC","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.18.1.04HIC","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past two centuries, the use of the adjective grand underwent a specific semantic expansion in Irish English. Apart from the meaning of ‘displaying grandeur’, the adjective came to mean ‘fine’, ‘alright’ and ‘in good form’, both as an expression of the speaker’s situation and as a reference to that of the addressee. This development can be shown to represent a case of subjectification, as described seminally by Elizabeth Traugott in various publications (e.g., Traugott 1995 ), with the element of intersubjectification arising somewhat later ( Traugott 2003 ). Through the examination of various texts, this paper examines the diachronic development of grand in its various uses and the rise of the Irish English extension with a consideration of possible precursors and parallels in other varieties. The subjective and intersubjective uses of grand are labelled “approving grand ” and “reassuring grand ” respectively and are shown to be in keeping with other features of Irish discourse structure and pragmatics.","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"82-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.18.1.04HIC","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45846309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Auer, Anita, Daniel Schreier and Richard Watts (eds). 2015. Letter Writing and Language Change","authors":"M. Włodarczyk","doi":"10.1075/JHP.18.1.07WLO","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.18.1.07WLO","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"142-151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.18.1.07WLO","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45237115","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent analyses of written text types have discovered significant frequency increases of colloquial or conversational elements, such as contractions, personal pronouns, questions or the progressive. This trend is often referred to as colloquialization. This paper presents a new perspective on colloquialization, with a special focus on the discourse marker well . The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, we present new evidence of colloquialization on the basis of the TIME Magazine Corpus ( Davies 2007 ), which allows analyses of diachronic change in recent written American English. The focus of our analysis is on highly frequent “inserts” (Biber et al. 1999: 56), which are elements such as discourse markers (e.g., well and oh ), backchannels ( yeah, uh-huh , etc.), and hesitators ( uh and um , etc.). We conclude that inserts significantly increase diachronically in TIME. In the second part of the paper, we focus on the element well in its function as a discourse marker. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative analytical steps, we analyze its diachronic development in terms of its structural contexts and its pragmatic functions, fleshing out how the process of colloquialization has affected its usage in recent written American English. We argue that the integration of corpus linguistic and pragmatic methods in this case study represents a new step towards the field of corpus pragmatics, that is, “the rapprochement between corpus linguistics and pragmatics and an integration of their key methodologies” ( Ruhlemann and Aijmer 2014 : 23).
最近对书面文本类型的分析发现，口语或会话元素的频率显著增加，如缩写、人称代词、疑问句或进行句。这种趋势通常被称为口语化。本文对口语化提出了一个新的视角，特别是对语篇标记的研究。本文分为两个部分。在第一部分中，我们在《时代》杂志语料库（Davies 2007）的基础上提出了口语化的新证据，该语料库允许分析最近美国英语书面语的历时变化。我们分析的重点是高度频繁的“插入”（Biber et al.1999:56），这些插入是话语标记（例如，好和哦）、反向通道（是的，嗯等等）和犹豫符（嗯和嗯等等）等元素。在本文的第二部分中，我们重点讨论了元素作为话语标记的功能。通过定量和定性相结合的分析步骤，我们从口语化的结构语境和语用功能两个方面分析了口语化的历时发展，丰富了口语化过程如何影响其在美国现代书面英语中的使用。我们认为，在本案例研究中，语料库语言学和语用学方法的结合代表着语料库语用学领域迈出了新的一步，即“语料库语言学与语用学之间的和解及其关键方法的结合”（Ruhlemann和Aijmer，2014： 23）。
{"title":"Colloquialization in journalistic writing","authors":"Christoph Rühlemann, M. Hilpert","doi":"10.1075/JHP.18.1.05RUH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.18.1.05RUH","url":null,"abstract":"Recent analyses of written text types have discovered significant frequency increases of colloquial or conversational elements, such as contractions, personal pronouns, questions or the progressive. This trend is often referred to as colloquialization. This paper presents a new perspective on colloquialization, with a special focus on the discourse marker well . The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, we present new evidence of colloquialization on the basis of the TIME Magazine Corpus ( Davies 2007 ), which allows analyses of diachronic change in recent written American English. The focus of our analysis is on highly frequent “inserts” (Biber et al. 1999: 56), which are elements such as discourse markers (e.g., well and oh ), backchannels ( yeah, uh-huh , etc.), and hesitators ( uh and um , etc.). We conclude that inserts significantly increase diachronically in TIME. In the second part of the paper, we focus on the element well in its function as a discourse marker. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative analytical steps, we analyze its diachronic development in terms of its structural contexts and its pragmatic functions, fleshing out how the process of colloquialization has affected its usage in recent written American English. We argue that the integration of corpus linguistic and pragmatic methods in this case study represents a new step towards the field of corpus pragmatics, that is, “the rapprochement between corpus linguistics and pragmatics and an integration of their key methodologies” ( Ruhlemann and Aijmer 2014 : 23).","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"104-135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.18.1.05RUH","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44325259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is the author's accepted manuscript. Copyright 2016, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Contact the publisher for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any form.
{"title":"“speaking base approbious words”: Speech Representation in Early Modern English Witness Depositions","authors":"T. Walker, P. Grund","doi":"10.1075/JHP.18.1.01WAL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.18.1.01WAL","url":null,"abstract":"This is the author's accepted manuscript. Copyright 2016, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Contact the publisher for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any form.","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"1-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.18.1.01WAL","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47125111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The most frequent strategy of direct reported speech in Old Irish (OIr) is characterized by the use of a constituent which is known in this paper as Reported Speaker, which consists of the element ol introducing the noun or the tonic pronoun referring to the person whose words are quoted. This paper offers a formal and pragmatic description of the Old Irish Reported Speaker, paying special attention to its basically nominal character and to its frequent coreferential association with first-person referents in the quote. The OIr quotative marker ol is diachronically explained as a further use of the OIr multifunctional element ol , which is essentially a preposition (‘beyond’) secondarily used as the marker of the NP standard of comparison and as a clausal connective.
{"title":"Descriptive and diachronic aspects of the Old Irish quotative marker ol","authors":"C. Castillero","doi":"10.1075/JHP.18.1.03GAR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.18.1.03GAR","url":null,"abstract":"The most frequent strategy of direct reported speech in Old Irish (OIr) is characterized by the use of a constituent which is known in this paper as Reported Speaker, which consists of the element ol introducing the noun or the tonic pronoun referring to the person whose words are quoted. This paper offers a formal and pragmatic description of the Old Irish Reported Speaker, paying special attention to its basically nominal character and to its frequent coreferential association with first-person referents in the quote. The OIr quotative marker ol is diachronically explained as a further use of the OIr multifunctional element ol , which is essentially a preposition (‘beyond’) secondarily used as the marker of the NP standard of comparison and as a clausal connective.","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"58-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.18.1.03GAR","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41558307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper investigates the formal and functional dimensions of reported discourse in sixteenth-century correspondence. It focuses on how letter-writers report the utterances – spoken, thought and written – of high-status sources (namely, the king or queen), in order to assess how the early modern reporting system compares with the present-day equivalent. The early modern values of authenticity, verbatim reporting and verbal authority are examined. The results taken from the Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC) suggest that early modern writers prefer to present royal language using indirect reports with semi-conventionalised linguistic features that clearly mark the authority of the source. Only an elite few, associated with the Court, use direct speech. The paper suggests that reporting practices distinguish between speech and writing, with the latter showing nascent signs of anxiety over verbatim reporting. I argue that these trends arise from the larger cultural shift from oral to written records taking place throughout the early modern period.
{"title":"Royal Language and Reported Discourse in Sixteenth Century Correspondence","authors":"M. Evans","doi":"10.1075/JHP.18.1.02EVA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.18.1.02EVA","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the formal and functional dimensions of reported discourse in sixteenth-century correspondence. It focuses on how letter-writers report the utterances – spoken, thought and written – of high-status sources (namely, the king or queen), in order to assess how the early modern reporting system compares with the present-day equivalent. The early modern values of authenticity, verbatim reporting and verbal authority are examined. The results taken from the Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC) suggest that early modern writers prefer to present royal language using indirect reports with semi-conventionalised linguistic features that clearly mark the authority of the source. Only an elite few, associated with the Court, use direct speech. The paper suggests that reporting practices distinguish between speech and writing, with the latter showing nascent signs of anxiety over verbatim reporting. I argue that these trends arise from the larger cultural shift from oral to written records taking place throughout the early modern period.","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"30-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.18.1.02EVA","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48168364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rutten, Gijsbert and Marijke J. van der Wal. 2014. Letters as Loot: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Dutch","authors":"Mel Evans","doi":"10.1075/JHP.18.1.06EVA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.18.1.06EVA","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"59 ","pages":"136-141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.18.1.06EVA","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41275535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, I examine a form of argumentation employed by one of the most prominent parliamentarian news pamphlets of the English Civil War (1642–1649). The pamphlet in question is Mercurius Britanicus. It was founded to counter through its pages the news that was being published in Mercurius Aulicus, the foremost royalist publication. In its animadversion of Aulicus’s news, Britanicus first repeated the royalist text, and then responded to it. In my study, I shall focus on instances where the not wholly faithful reporting of Aulicus’s text leads to (socio)pragmatic meanings. I have taken into consideration both the wider social context in which the pamphlet writers were writing as well as the immediate situational context – the pamphlet as a genre. In my analysis of Britanicus’s animadversion, I examine titles of courtesy and the omission and substitution of words.
{"title":"“He tells us that”: Strategies of reporting adversarial news in the English Civil War","authors":"Nicholas Brownlees","doi":"10.1075/JHP.00004.BRO","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.00004.BRO","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I examine a form of argumentation employed by one of the most prominent parliamentarian news pamphlets of the English Civil War (1642–1649). The pamphlet in question is Mercurius Britanicus. It was founded to counter through its pages the news that was being published in Mercurius Aulicus, the foremost royalist publication. In its animadversion of Aulicus’s news, Britanicus first repeated the royalist text, and then responded to it. In my study, I shall focus on instances where the not wholly faithful reporting of Aulicus’s text leads to (socio)pragmatic meanings. I have taken into consideration both the wider social context in which the pamphlet writers were writing as well as the immediate situational context – the pamphlet as a genre. In my analysis of Britanicus’s animadversion, I examine titles of courtesy and the omission and substitution of words.","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"235-251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.00004.BRO","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58725298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper argues for a reconsideration of the pragmatics of Beowulf, specifically in relation to speech in what is known as the “Unferð Episode”, and more generally in terms of the poem’s placement in the ethnopragmatic history of English. Previous critics have almost unanimously read sarcasm into Beowulf’s treatment of the initially hostile Unferð (e.g., in his address to the latter as wine min, ‘my friend’), and in turn historical pragmaticists have discussed the poem in relation to Germanic insult-boasts, or flyting. By discussing the relevant contextual and co-textual frames, I show that previous interpretations along these lines have failed to recognize the import of Beowulf’s courtly speech.
{"title":"wine min Unferð: Courtly speech and a reconsideration of (supposed) sarcasm in Beowulf","authors":"G. Williams","doi":"10.1075/JHP.00001.WIL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JHP.00001.WIL","url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues for a reconsideration of the pragmatics of Beowulf, specifically in relation to speech in what is known as the “Unferð Episode”, and more generally in terms of the poem’s placement in the ethnopragmatic history of English. Previous critics have almost unanimously read sarcasm into Beowulf’s treatment of the initially hostile Unferð (e.g., in his address to the latter as wine min, ‘my friend’), and in turn historical pragmaticists have discussed the poem in relation to Germanic insult-boasts, or flyting. By discussing the relevant contextual and co-textual frames, I show that previous interpretations along these lines have failed to recognize the import of Beowulf’s courtly speech.","PeriodicalId":54081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Pragmatics","volume":"18 1","pages":"175-194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JHP.00001.WIL","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58725338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","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：