Chapter 6
Spatio-temporal systems in Chaucer
This paper presents a systematic analysis of synchronic spatio-temporal systems in Chaucer’s language against the background of research in historical pragmatics and discourse analysis. The data consists of The Canterbury tales (fiction) and A treatise on the astrolabe (handbook). After defining spatio-temporal systems, I carry out a frequency study of the speaker’s use of spatio-temporal elements, by comparing the two registers and contrasting proximal and distal elements. A qualitative analysis then highlights typical patterns of spatio-temporal elements in discourse. It reveals how proximal or distal elements combine in conveying a proximal or distal perspective and how these perspectives change in discourse.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.What are spatio-temporal systems?
- 3.Elements of space and time
- 3.1Frequency analysis
- 3.2Proximal vs. distal elements
- 4.Spatio-temporal systems in discourse
- 4.1Typical combinations
- 4.2Discourse-structuring elements
- 4.3Combining proximal or distal elements
- 4.4The alternation between proximal and distal perspectives
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (49)
References
Benson, Larry Dean. 1961. Chaucer’s historical present: Its meaning and uses. English Studies 42. 65–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Benson, Larry Dean (ed.). 1987. The Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Modal use across registers and time. In Anne Curzan & Kimberly Emmonds (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language, Unfolding conversations, 189–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Doublas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boggel, Sandra. 2009. Metadiscourse in Middle English and Early Modern English religious texts: A corpus-based study. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brisard, Frank (ed.). 2002. Grounding: The epistemic footing and deixis and reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: G. Fischer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Duchan, Judith F., Gail A. Bruder & Lynne E. Hewett (eds.). 1995. Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eisner, Sigmund. 1975. Building Chaucer’s astrolabe, Part I. Journal of British Astronomical Association 86. 18–29.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eisner, Sigmund. 1976a. Building Chaucer’s astrolabe, Part II. Journal of British Astronomical Association 86. 125–132.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eisner, Sigmund. 1976b. Building Chaucer’s astrolabe, Part III. Journal of British Astronomical Association 86. 219–227.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles J. 1997 [1975]. Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Originally published as Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fries, Udo. 1994. Text deixis in Early Modern English. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 111–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gunther, Robert Theodore. 1977. Chaucer on the astrolabe with original illustrations. Revised from the 1931 Oxford Edition by Robert Theodore Gunther. Emeryville, CA: Norman Greene.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. Milton Park: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, Yan. 2014. Pragmatics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jucker, Andreas H. 2006. “Thou art so loothly and so oold also”: The use of ye and thou in Chaucer’s Canterbury tales
. Anglistik 17(2). 57–72.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen. 2013. English historical pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kytö, Merja (ed.). 1996. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki corpus of English texts: Coding conventions and lists of source texts, 3rd edn. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martin, James Robert. 2015. Cohesion and texture. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 1, 2nd edn., 61–81. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MED. 2007. Middle English dictionary. [URL]. (6 September, 2015.)
Nagucka, Ruta. 2000. The spatial and temporal meanings of before in Middle English. In Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen, Päivi Pahta & Matti Rissanen (eds.), Placing Middle English in context, 329–337. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nakayasu, Minako. 2009. The pragmatics of modals in Shakespeare. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nakayasu, Minako. 2011. Towards a pragmatic analysis of modals shall and will in Chaucer’s language. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 46(4). 73–96.
.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nakayasu, Minako. 2013. Chaucer’s historical present: A discourse-pragmatic perspective. In Liliana Sikorska & Marcin Krygier (eds.), Evur happie and glorious, ffor I have at will grete riches, 41–60. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nakayasu, Minako. 2014. Weep now namoore; I wol thy lust fulfille: Towards a sociopragmatic analysis of the spatio-temporal systems in Chaucer. Paper read at the First Poznań Historical Sociopragmatics Symposium. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland.
Nakayasu, Minako. 2015. Spatio-temporal systems in A treatise on the astrolabe
. In Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre & Javier Calle-Martín (eds.), Approaches to Middle English: Variation, contact and change, 243–259. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
North, John David. 1988. Chaucer’s universe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oakeshott-Taylor, John. 1984. Factuality, tense, intonation and perspective: Some thoughts on the semantics of ‘think’. Lingua 62. 289–317. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pakkala-Wekström, Mari. 2005. The dialogue of love, marriage and maistrie in Chaucer’s Canterbury tales
. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmer, Frank Robert. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1999. Personality and styles of affect in the Canterbury tales
. In Geoffrey Lester (ed.), Chaucer in perspective: Middle English essays in honour of Norman Blake, 218–234. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taavitsainen, Irma & Andreas H. Jucker. 2010. Trends and developments in historical pragmatics. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tanabe, Harumi. 2014.
Kantaberiimonogatari no katarite no shakaikaikyuu kara mita goyoo-hyooshiki toshite no this ni tsuite [The pragmatic marker this viewed from the narrator’s social rank in the Canterbury tales
]. In The Society for Chaucer Studies & Koichi Kano (eds.), Choosaa to chuusei o nagamete: Choosaakenkyuukai 20shuunenkinenronbunshuu [Through the eyes of Chaucer: Essays in celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Society for Chaucer Studies], 185–200. Tokyo: Asao Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1974. Explorations in linguistic elaboration: Language change, language acquisition and the genesis of spatio-temporal terms. In John Mathieson Anderson & Charles Jones (eds.), Historical linguistics, vol. 1: Syntax, morphology, internal and comparative reconstruction: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh, 2–7 September 1973, 263–314. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1978. On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 3: Word structure, 369–400. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilkins, David P. 1995. Expanding the traditional category of deictic elements: Interjections as deictics. In Judith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder & Lynne E. Hewitt (eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective, 359–386. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Nakayasu, Minako
2021.
Spatio-Temporal Systems in Shakespeare’s Dialogues: A Case from Julius Caesar
.
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 0:0
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.