{"title":"分解与部分重组:作为多功能话语标记的同一符号的出现","authors":"M. Pinson","doi":"10.1177/00754242231171392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper documents the constructionalization of by the same token. Originally, the word same in this phrase did not encode similarity but functioned as an identification emphasizer and a marker of syntactic dependency between the evidential noun token and the clause that followed it. By the same token then acted as a complex subordinator introducing a justification. The data suggest that two non-compositional uses developed from the evidential subordinator during the seventeenth century: a digressive discourse marker and a subordinator combining high degree and consequence. Faced with polysemy and lack of transparency, speakers/hearers then reintroduced some compositionality to the phrase by assigning to same the meaning of similarity that it had elsewhere. From this partial recompositionalization stems today’s elaborative discourse marker. Originally used to connect two consequences of the same premise, it then extended its connective value. It is now polyfunctional and is even often used to connect two contrasting statements. There are signs that it is now often treated by speakers as a member of a constructional network of adversative discourse markers.","PeriodicalId":51803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English Linguistics","volume":"51 1","pages":"236 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decompositionalization and Partial Recompositionalization: The Emergence of by the Same Token as a Polyfunctional Discourse Marker\",\"authors\":\"M. Pinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00754242231171392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper documents the constructionalization of by the same token. Originally, the word same in this phrase did not encode similarity but functioned as an identification emphasizer and a marker of syntactic dependency between the evidential noun token and the clause that followed it. By the same token then acted as a complex subordinator introducing a justification. The data suggest that two non-compositional uses developed from the evidential subordinator during the seventeenth century: a digressive discourse marker and a subordinator combining high degree and consequence. Faced with polysemy and lack of transparency, speakers/hearers then reintroduced some compositionality to the phrase by assigning to same the meaning of similarity that it had elsewhere. From this partial recompositionalization stems today’s elaborative discourse marker. Originally used to connect two consequences of the same premise, it then extended its connective value. It is now polyfunctional and is even often used to connect two contrasting statements. There are signs that it is now often treated by speakers as a member of a constructional network of adversative discourse markers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51803,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of English Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"236 - 264\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of English Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242231171392\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242231171392","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Decompositionalization and Partial Recompositionalization: The Emergence of by the Same Token as a Polyfunctional Discourse Marker
This paper documents the constructionalization of by the same token. Originally, the word same in this phrase did not encode similarity but functioned as an identification emphasizer and a marker of syntactic dependency between the evidential noun token and the clause that followed it. By the same token then acted as a complex subordinator introducing a justification. The data suggest that two non-compositional uses developed from the evidential subordinator during the seventeenth century: a digressive discourse marker and a subordinator combining high degree and consequence. Faced with polysemy and lack of transparency, speakers/hearers then reintroduced some compositionality to the phrase by assigning to same the meaning of similarity that it had elsewhere. From this partial recompositionalization stems today’s elaborative discourse marker. Originally used to connect two consequences of the same premise, it then extended its connective value. It is now polyfunctional and is even often used to connect two contrasting statements. There are signs that it is now often treated by speakers as a member of a constructional network of adversative discourse markers.
期刊介绍:
Journal of English Linguistics: The Editor invites submissions on the modern and historical periods of the English language. JEngL normally publishes synchronic and diachronic studies on subjects from Old and Middle English to modern English grammar, corpus linguistics, and dialectology. Other topics such as language contact, pidgins/creoles, or stylistics, are acceptable if the article focuses on the English language. Articless normally range from ten to twenty-five pages in typescript. JEngL reviews titles in general and historical linguistics, language variation, socio-linguistics, and dialectology for an international audience. Unsolicited reviews cannot be considered. Books for review and correspondence regarding reviews should be sent to the Editor.