Historical pragmatics

Andreas H. Jucker
Table of contents

Historical pragmatics (HP) is a field of study that investigates pragmatic aspects in the history of specific languages. It studies various aspects of language use at earlier stages in the development of a language; it studies the diachronic development of language use; and it studies the pragmatic motivations for language change.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Arnovick, L. K.
1999 Diachronic pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, M.
2000 Is a diachronic speech act theory possible? Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1.1: 57–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, N. F.
2002 A grammar of Shakespeare's language. Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breuer, H.
1983 Titel und Anreden bei Shakespeare und in der Shakespearezeit. Anglia 101: 49–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J.
1996 Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “The flowers are lovely; only, they have no scent.”: The evolution of a pragmatic marker in English. In R. Borgmeier, H. Grabes & A. H. Jucker (eds.) Anglistentag 1997 Giessen. Proceedings: 9–33. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
2001a Historical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (eds.) The handbook of discourse analysis: 138–160. Blackwell.Google Scholar
2001b From matrix clause to pragmatic marker. The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(2): 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Processes underlying the development of pragmatic markers: The case of (I) say . In J. Skaffari, M. Peikola, R. Carroll, R. Hiltunen & B. Wårvik (eds.) Opening windows on texts and discourses of the past: 279–299. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & A. Gilman
1989 Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. Language in Society 18(2): 159–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson
1987 Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busse, U.
2002 Linguistic variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 The co-occurrence of nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus: Who says thou or you to whom? In I. Taavitsainen & A. H. Jucker (eds.) Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: 193–221. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, D. E.
2001 Reanimated voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. & M. Kytö
2010 Early Modern English dialogues. Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. & D. Z. Kádár
(eds.) 2010 Historical (im)politeness. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutschmann, M.
2003 Apologising in British English. Institutionen för moderna språk, Umeå University.Google Scholar
Dossena, M. & I. Tieken-Boon Van Ostade
(eds.) 2008 Studies in Late Modern English correspondence. Methodology and data. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ehrismann, G.
1901–1904 Duzen und Ihrzen im Mittelalter. Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 1 1901, 117–149; 2, 1902, 118–159; 4, 1903, 210–248; 5, 1904, 127–220.Google Scholar
Finkenstaedt, Th.
1963 You and thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen. Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. M.
2002a The familiar letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic approach. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002b “Plethoras of witty verbiage” and “heathen Greek”: Ways of reading meaning in English comic drama. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3(1): 31–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geis,M. & A. M. Zwicky
1971 On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 561–566. Google Scholar
Hickey, R.
2003 The German address system: Binary and scalar at once. In I. Taavitsainen & A. H. Jucker (eds.) Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: 401–425. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hope, J.
1993 Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern “spoken” English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94: 83–100.Google Scholar
1994 The use of thou and you in Early Modern spoken English: Evidence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records. In D. Kastovsky (ed.) Studies in Early Modern English: 141–152. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, A. & A. H. Jucker
1995 The historical perspective in pragmatics. In A. H. Jucker (ed.) Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English: 3–33. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H.
2000a English historical pragmatics: Problems of data and methodology. In G. Di Martino & M. Lima (eds.) English diachronic pragmatics: 17–55. CUEN.Google Scholar
2000b “Thou” in the history of English: A case for historical semantics or pragmatics? In Ch Dalton-Puffer & N. Ritt (eds.) Words: Structure, meaning, function. A festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky: 153–163. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In R. Watts & P. Trudgill (eds.) Alternative Histories of English: 210–230. Routledge.Google Scholar
2008 Politeness in the history of English. In R. Dury, M. Gotti & M. Dossena (eds.) English historical linguistics 2006. Volume II: Lexical and semantic change. Selected papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006: 3–29. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “In curteisie was set ful muchel hir lest”: Politeness in Middle English. In J. Culpeper & D. Z. Kádár (eds.) Historical (im)politeness: 175–200. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., G. Fritz & F. Lebsanft
1999 Historical dialogue analysis: Roots and traditions in the study of the Romance languages, German and English. In A H. Jucker, G. Fritz & F. Lebsanft (eds.) Historical dialogue analysis: 1–33. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H., G. Schneider, I. Taavitsainen & B. Breustedt
2008 Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.) Speech acts in the history of English: 273–294. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. & I. Taavitsainen
2000 Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 67–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: Introduction. In I. Taavitsainen & A. H. Jucker (eds.) Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: 1–25. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Apologies in the history of English: Routinized and lexicalized expressions of responsibility and regret. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.) Speech acts in the history of English: 229–244. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.) 2010 Handbook of historical pragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P.
1999 Court records and cartoons: Reflections of spontaneous dialogue in Early Romance texts. In A. H. Jucker, G. Fritz & F. Lebsanft (eds.) Historical dialogue analysis: 399–429. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. & W. Oesterreicher
1985 Sprache der Nähe–Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, Th
2000a Explicit performatives in Old English: A corpus-based study of directives. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(2): 301–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, Th.
2000b Corpora and speech acts: The study of performatives. In Ch. Mair & M. Hundt (eds.) Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Papers from the twentieth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999: 177–186. Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Th
2002 Towards a history of English directives. In A. Fischer, G. Tottie & H. M. Lehmann (eds.) Text types and corpora. Studies in honour of Udo Fries: 165–175. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Th.
2008a Linguistic politeness in Anglo-Saxon England? A study of Old English address terms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9(1): 140–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b Directives in Old English: Beyond politeness? In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.) Speech acts in the history of English: 27–44. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopytko, R.
1993 Polite discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adam Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.Google Scholar
1995 Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays. In A. H. Jucker (ed.) Historical pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English: 515–540. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, B.
2006 Historical courtroom discourse: Introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7(2): 163–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebsanft, F.
1988 Studien zu einer Linguistik des Grußes. Sprache und Funktion der altfranzösischen Grußformeln. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, U.
2000  Soplice and witodlice. Discourse markers in Old English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (eds.) Pathways of change. Grammaticalization in English: 229–249. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Listen, P.
1999 The emergence of German polite. Cognitive and sociolinguistic parameters. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lötscher, A.
1981 Zur Sprachgeschichte des Fluchens und Beschimpfens im Schweizer deutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 48: 145–160.Google Scholar
Mazzon, G.
2003 Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English: A socio-affective marking system in transition. In I. Taavitsainen & A. H. Jucker (eds.) Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: 223–249. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, G. J.
1938 Forms of address in German (1500–1800). Washington University Studies.Google Scholar
Nevala, M.
2004 Address in Early English correspondence. Its forms and socio-pragmatic functions. Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T.
2004 Letter writing: Introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(2): 181–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & H. Raumolin-Brunberg
1995 Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in Early English correspondence. In A. H. Jucker (ed.) Historical pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English: 541–601. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onodera, N. O.
2004 Japanese discourse markers. Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pakkala-Weckström, M.
2008 “No botmeles bihestes”: Various ways of making binding promises in Middle English. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.) Speech acts in the history of English: 133–162. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Person, R. R., Jr
2009 “Oh” in Shakespeare: A conversation analytic approach. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(1): 84–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, B.
1979 Ai las – Que planhs?. Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 3: 1–30.Google Scholar
Schrott, A.
2000 “¿Qu í los podri é contar?” Interrogative acts in the Cantar de mio Cid. Some examples from Old Spanish on asking questions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(2): 263–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schrott, A. & H. Völker
2005 Historische Pragmatik und historische Varietätenlinguistik. Traditionen, Methoden und Modelle in der Romanistik. In A. Schrott & H. Völker (eds.) Historische Pragmatik und historische Varietätenlinguistik in den romanischen Sprachen: 1–22. Universitätsverlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. J.
2003 Für eine grammatische Kategorie “Respekt” im Deutschen. Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie der deutschen Anredepronomina. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skewis, M.
2003 Mitigated directness in Honglou meng: Directive speech acts and politeness in eighteenth century Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 161–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Söll, L.
1974 Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Französisch. Erich Schmidt [3rd edition 1985, revised and amplified by F.J. Hausmann].Google Scholar
Somolinos, A. R.
2005 From certainty to doubt: The evolution of the discourse marker voire in French. In J. Skaffari, M. Peikola, R. Carroll, R. Hiltunen & B. Wårvik (eds.) Opening windows on texts and discourses of the past: 301–317. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I.
1995 Interjections in Early Modern English: From imitation of spoken to conventions of written language. In A. H. Jucker (ed.) Historical pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English: 439–465. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. & S. M. Fitzmaurice
2007 Historical pragmatics: What it is and how to do it. In S. M. Fitzmaurice & I, Taavitsainen (eds.) Methodological issues in historical pragmatics: 11–36. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. & A. H. Jucker
(eds.) 2003 Diachronic perspectives on address term systems. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Speech acts and speech act verbs in the history of English. In S. Fitzmaurice & I. Taavitsainen (eds.) Methodological issues in historical pragmatics: 107–138. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a Speech acts now and then: Towards a pragmatic history of English. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.) Speech acts in the history of English: 1–23. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b “Methinks you seem more beautiful than ever”: Compliments and gender in the history of English. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.) Speech acts in the history of English: 195–228. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
2004 Historical pragmatics. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.) The handbook of pragmatics: 538–561. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Valkonen, P.
2008 Showing a little promise: Identifying and retrieving explicit illocutionary acts from a corpus of written prose. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.) Speech acts in the history of English: 247–272. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J.
1992 Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in language. Studies in its history, theory and practice: 43–70. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Politeness. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar