Article published in:
The Role of Pragmatics in Cyclic Language Change
Edited by Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen
[Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21:2] 2020
► pp. 315–346

Some reflections on semantic–pragmatic cycles

| University of Valencia
| University of Valencia
This paper explores novel ways to consider semantic–pragmatic cycles using a dual strategy: an inwards strategy, whereby the distinctive traits of a pragmatic cycle are established, and an outwards strategy, whereby the categories that delimit semantic–pragmatic cycles are described. The result of this exploration is the distinction between “pragmatic cycle”, “replication”, “concomitance” and “paradigmatic increase” as four different yet related processes. In addition, this study integrates Construction Grammar into the description of each process and shows that the study of semantic–pragmatic cycles can benefit from a constructional approach, adopting Traugott and Trousdale’s (2013) and Traugott’s (2018) models, and including concepts from European structuralism, particularly the notions of “paradigm”, “diasystem” and “functional language” (“lengua funcional”).
Keywords: constructionalisation, discourse units, grammaticalization, position, semantic–pragmatic cycle
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The dual origin of cyclicity and how to overcome it
    • 2.1Cyclicity in its initial stage
    • 2.2What S–P cycles are
    • 2.3What S–P cycles are not
  • 3.Cyclicity from the point of view of its essential features
    • 3.1Introduction
      • 3.1.1Items with similar meaning
      • 3.1.2Repetition of a linguistic change (similar source meaning > similar pragmatic extension)
      • 3.1.3Gradual acquisition
      • 3.1.4Persistence/loss of the micro-construction
      • 3.1.5Different time spans
      • 3.1.6The same (or close) diatopic, diastratic and diaphasic varieties
  • 4.A case of cyclicity: macho-tío/a
    • 4.1 Macho
    • 4.2 Tío/a
    • 4.3The expansion of tío/a
  • 5.Cyclicity-related cases
    • 5.1A concomitance development: macho/tío versus güey
    • 5.2A case of replication: igual/lo mismo
    • 5.3Paradigmatic increase: esto es/o sea
  • 6.Final remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 03 March 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00046.pon
References

Corpora

Briz, Antonio and Grupo Val.Es.Co.
2002 Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Cabedo, Adrián and Salvador Pons. Corpus Val.Es.Co. 2.0
Accessed May 2018 at: www​.valesco​.es
Marcos Marín, Francisco
dir. Corpus Oral de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea (corlec) Available online at http://​www​.lllf​.uam​.es​/ESP​/Corlec​.html
Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (corde)
Corpus diacrónico del español. Accessed December and January 2018 at: http://​www​.rae​.es
Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (crea)
Corpus de referencia del español actual. Accessed February and March 2018 at: http://​www​.rae​.es
Beinhauer, Werner
1991 [1964] El español coloquial. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio
1998 El español coloquial en la conversación. Esbozo de pragmagramática. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio and Val.Es.Co. Research Group
2003 “Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial”. Oralia 61: 7–61.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1952 Sistema, norma y habla. Montevideo: Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
1973 Lecciones de lingüística general. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
1977 Principios de semántica estructural. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep
1992–93 “Sobre l’evolució dels nexes conjuntius en català”. Llengua and Literatura 51: 173–213.Google Scholar
Cuello, Carlos
2015 Historia de la partícula discursiva hombre: condicionamientos sincrónicos y evolución diacrónica. Unpublished MA Thesis. Valencia.Google Scholar
De Latte, Fien and Renata Enghels
2018 “La variación (socio)lingüística del vocativo en el español madrileño actual”. In Martin Glessgen, Johannes Kabatek and Harald Völker (eds), Repenser la variation linguistique, 233–248. Strasbourg: EliPhi.Google Scholar
Garachana, Mar
2008 “En los límites de la gramaticalizacion. La evolución de encima (de que) como marcador del discurso”. Revista de Filologia Espanola 88 (1): 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara and Piera Molinelli
2014 “Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. quaeso and It. prego): the cyclic nature of functional developments”. In Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli (eds), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages, 61–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glare, Peter G. W.
1996 Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glessgen, Martin, Johannes Kabatek and Harald Völker
2018 Repenser la variation linguistique. Strasbourg: EliPhi.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michael and Suzanne Carroll
1978 Language and Situation: Language Varieties and Their Social Contexts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
2014 “Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: the Medieval particle ja between Latin IAM and Modern French déjà’ ”. In Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli (eds), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages, 139–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Cyclic phenomena in the evolution of pragmatic markers. Examples from Romance”. In Salvador Pons and Oscar Loureda (eds), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, 51–77. Amsterdam: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herrero Ingelmo, Jose Luis
2006 “¿Cómo surgen los conectores: los reformuladores del discurso id est, esto es, es decir? ” Revista de Lexicografia 131: 45–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoyos Gonzalez, Margarita de
1981 “Una variedad en el habla coloquial: la jerga ‘cheli’”. Cauce: Revista de filologia y su diddctica 41: 31–42.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1917 Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host og Son.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Annette Myre
2008 “ Tío y tía como marcadores en el lenguaje de Madrid”. In Inés Olza Moreno, Manuel Casado Velarde and Ramón González Ruiz (eds), Actas del XXXVII Simposio Internacional e la Sociedad Español de Lingüística (SEL), 387–396. Pamplona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra.Google Scholar
Kleinknecht, Friederike
2013 “Mexican güey -from vocative to discourse marker: a case of grammaticalisation?” In Barbara Sonnenhauser and Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds), Vocative! Addressing between System and Performance, 141–174. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter and Wulf Oesterreicher
1985 “Sprache der Nähe -Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit un Schriftkichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachheschichte”. Romanistisches Jahbuch 361: 15–43.Google Scholar
Lázaro Carreter, Fernando
1979 “Una jerga juvenil: ‘el cheli’”. ABC, 14/10/1979: 1181.Google Scholar
Llopis Cardona, Ana
2018 “Sobre la pragmaticalización de lo mismo e igual como marcadores epistémicos”. In Ester Brenes, Marina González and Francisco Javier Grande (eds), Enunciado y discurso: estructura y relaciones, 153–179. Universidad de Sevilla: Sevilla.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. “La gramaticalización del igual americano como reformulador y concesivo: ¿caso de réplica de lo mismo?” Onomázein, 561.
Llopis Cardona, Ana and Marta Pilar Montañez Mesas
2020 “Los marcadores apelativos en el español peninsular”. In Antonio Hidalgo and Adrián Cabedo (eds), Pragmática del español hablado: hacia nuevos horizontes, 319–336. València: Universitat de València.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martinet, Andre
1952 “Function, Structure, and Sound Change”. Word 8 (1): 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moliner, Maria
1967 Diccionario de uso del espanol. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Pardo Llibrer, Adrià
2019 “Approximatives vs. approximators: a case of spiral-like cycle?” 2nd Workshop on Cyclicity in Semantic–Pragmatic Change 8–9 October 2018 University of Manchester. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador
2008 “Grammaticalization por tradiciones discursivas: el caso de esto es”. In Johannes Kabatek (ed.), Sintaxis historica del espanoly cambio linguistico: nuevasperspectivas desde las tradiciones discursivas, 249–274. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2014a Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b “Paths of Grammaticalization in Spanish o sea ”. In Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli (eds), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages, 109–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Paths of grammaticalization: beyond the LP/RP debate”. In Salvador Pons and Oscar Loureda (eds), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, XX–XX. Amsterdam: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador and Oscar Loureda Lamas
(eds) 2018 Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change. Amsterdam: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Espanola
1739 Diccionario de Autoridades. Madrid: Real Academia Espanola.Google Scholar
Sevi, Aldo
1998 A Semantics for ‘Almost’ and ‘Barely’. Tel-Aviv University, Master Dissertation: Tel-Aviv.Google Scholar
Tovar Llorente, Antonio
1968 Latín de Hispania. Aspectos léxicos de la romanización. Discurso de recepción en la Real Academia. Madrid: Real Academia Española.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard Dasher
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2018 “Modeling Language Change with Constructional Networks”. In Salvador Pons and Oscar Loureda (eds), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, 17–50. Amsterdam: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Val.Es.Co. Research Group
2014 “Las unidades del discurso oral. La propuesta Val.Es.Co de segmentation de la conversation (coloquial)”. Estudios de Linguistica del español/Infoling 35 (1): 13–73.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1954 “Is a Structural Dialectology Possible?” Word 101, 288–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar