Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) 9780199681600, 0199681600

Citation preview

Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages

O X F O R D S T U D I E S I N D I A C H R O N I C A ND H I S T O R I C A L L I N G U I S T I CS general e di to rs Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge a dv i so ry ed i to r s Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge rece ntly p ubl is he d in t he s e rie s 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith 5 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth 6 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale 7 Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto 8 Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent 9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by CHIARA GHEZZI AND PIERA MOLINELLI

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries # editorial matter and organization Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 2014 # the chapters their several authors 2014 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2014 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2013953479 ISBN 978–0–19–968160–0 As printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Contents Series preface Acknowledgements List of abbreviations Notes on contributors 1 Discourse and pragmatic markers from Latin to the Romance languages: New insights Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 2 The development of discourse and pragmatic markers Chiara Ghezzi

vii viii ix xii

1 10

Part I. Verbs as Pragmatic Markers 3 Call markers in French, Italian, and Romanian Maria Iliescu

29

4 On disagreement markers in French and Romanian dialogue Adriana Costachescu

41

5 Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. quaeso and It. prego): The cyclic nature of functional developments Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 6 Mă rog : A pragmatic marker in Romanian Michaela Livescu 7 Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea Salvador Pons Bordería

61 86 109

Part II. Adverbs as Discourse Markers 8 Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: The medieval particle ja between Latin iam and Modern French déjà Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

139

9 French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già: A case of contact-induced pragmaticalization Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

166

vi

Contents

10 The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance: From discourse grammar to illocution Mario Squartini

190

11 Aliás: A contribution to the study of a Portuguese discourse marker Ana Cristina Macário Lopes

211

12 Romanian atunci and French alors: Functional and discourse properties Mihaela Popescu

222

13 How does a concessive value emerge? Corinne Rossari

237

Conclusion The development of functional roles and Romance languages: Processes and patterns Piera Molinelli References Author index Subject index

261

272 291 295

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focusing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change, or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge

Acknowledgements The present volume brings to completion a line of research that has been carried out by the University of Bergamo, within the wider MIUR project devoted to ‘Contact and Change in the History of Mediterranean Languages’. The project was financed by the Italian Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (PRIN Project 2008 EHLWYE: main coordinator Marco Mancini, Viterbo; coordinator of the local unit Piera Molinelli, Bergamo). This book is inspired by discussions with scholars working on similar issues within Romance linguistics. We are especially grateful to colleagues who took part in the colloquium ‘Segnali discorsivi tra latino e lingue romanze’, organized by the editors at the University of Bergamo, 4–5 October 2011. The colloquium aimed to provide an opportunity for exchange between people who where collaborating on the PRIN Project within the University of Bergamo and the international scientific community. We thank all colleagues who, during the colloquium, have contributed with their discussions to the birth of this volume: Kate Beeching, Pierluigi Cuzzolin, Ulrich Detges, Dana Dinu, Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri, Paolo Ramat, Andrea Sansò, Federica Venier, and Jaqueline Visconti. We would like to thank the contributors not only for their valuable chapters but also for having acted as internal reviewers. We owe a special debt of gratitude to the external reviewers for their careful evaluations which improved the quality of the volume. We accept of course our final responsibility. We would like to thank the General Editors of the Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics, Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts. We are also grateful to John Davey and Julia Steer, and to all the people who have contributed to the birth of this book, at Oxford University Press, for their friendly and helpful assistance during the volume’s production.

List of abbreviations 1

1st person

2

2nd person

22

22 (a Romanian weekly political and cultural review)

3

3rd person

ABL

ablative

ACC

accusative

As

Formula As (Romanian weekly magazine)

BFM

Base de français médiéval (see p. 272 for URL)

BMF

Bases du moyen français (see p. 272 for URL)

Boc

Boccaccio

CdP

Corpus do Português (see p. 272 for URL)

CETEMPúblico

Corpus de extractos de textos electrónicos MCT/Público (see p. 272 for URL)

CFPP2000

Corpus de français parlé parisien (see p. 272 for URL)

Cic

Cicero

CLT

clitic

CM

courtesy marker

Collins and Robert The Collins Robert French–English Dictionary C-Oral-ROM

C-Oral-ROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages

CORV

Corpus de română vorbită

CREA

Corpus de referencia del español actual (see p. 272 for URL)

DA

Dicţionarul limbii române (1913–1949)

DAF

Dictionnaire de l’Académie française (version informatisée: see URL p. 273)

DAT

dative

DEF

definite

DELI

Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana

DER

Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române

DEX

Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române

DHF

Dictionnaire historique du français

DLR

Dicţionarul limbii române (1958–2009)

DLRC

Dicţionarul limbii române literare contemporane

x

List of abbreviations

DM

discourse marker

DSS

directive substantive subact

EFP

Erinnerungsfragepartikeln

EUP

euphonic particle

F

feminine

FEW

Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch

FP

focus particle

Fr.

French

FRANTEXT

Frantext (see p. 272 for URL)

FUT

future

GA

Gramatica limbii române (1963)

GALR I

Gramatica limbii române (2005), vol. 1, Cuvântul

GALR II

Gramatica limbii române (2005), vol. 2, Enunţul

GEN

genitive

Gol

Goldoni

HON

honorific

IAS

interpersonal adjacent subact

IE

Indo-European

IMP

imperative, impersonal clitic

IPFV

imperfective

INF

infinitive

It.

Italian

IVRLA

Interacţiunea verbală în limba română actuală. Corpus (selectiv). Schiţă de tipologie

Lat.

Latin

LIP

Corpus del lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato (see p. 272 for URL)

M

masculine

MAS

modal adjacent subact

Med.

Medieval

NEG

negation, negative

N

neuter

NOM

nominative

NPI

negative-polarity item

OBJ

object

OED

Oxford English Dictionary

List of abbreviations OF

Old French

OVI

Corpus OVI dell’italiano antico (see p. 272 for URL)

PASS

passive

PST

past tense

PDS

Present-day Spanish

Petr

Petronius

PL

plural

Pl

Plautus

PM

pragmatic marker

Port.

Portuguese

POSS

possessive

POV

point of view

PRI

Piedmontese Regional Italian

PRS

present

PTCP

participle

RAE

Real Academia Española

RFL

reflexive

Rlit.

România literară (weekly cultural review)

RM

reformulation marker

Rom.

Romanian

SBJ

subject

SCL

subject clitic

SG

singular

Sp.

Spanish

SSS

subordinate substantive subact

SBJV

subjunctive

TAM

tense-aspect-mood

TAS

textual adjacent subact

TLF

Trésor de la langue française (version informatisée: see URL p. 273)

T/M

Tiktin, Rumänisch–Deutsches Wörterbuch

TopAS

topicalized adjacent subact

TT

topic time

VOC

vocative

VP

verb phrase

xi

Notes on contributors Adriana Costachescu is Professor of French Linguistics at the University of Craiova, Romania. Her publications include L’Expression de la prédication spatiale en français (Sitech, 2007), Cours de pragmatique linguistique (Sitech, 2007), and La Pragmatique Linguistique: théorie, débats, exemples (Lincom Europa, 2013). She has published papers in the Annals of the University of Craiova, Revue roumaine de linguistique, Quaderni di studi italiani e romeni, and in a number of edited volumes. Her research interests encompass French, Romanian, Italian, and include formal semantics, pragmatics and its interface; time, space, and aspect in the three languages. Chiara Fedriani received her Ph.D at the University of Pavia, Italy, in 2012. In her dissertation she carried out a synchronic and diachronic study of experiential constructions in Latin. She has been a visiting scholar at the Universities of Bergen and Oslo, where she was involved in historical and typological research projects on argument structure and pragmatic resources in ancient Indo-European languages. Since September 2011 she has been a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Bergamo. Her research interests lie in historical linguistics, typology, Romance linguistics, and historical pragmatics. Chiara Ghezzi received her Ph.D in Linguistics from the University of Pavia, Italy, in 2013. Her dissertation was a sociopragmatic study, ‘Vagueness markers in contemporary Italian: intergenerational variation and pragmatic change’. She has been a visiting scholar at the Lanchart Centre at the University of Copenhagen, and has been Adjunct Lecturer in Sociolinguistics and Didactics of Italian Language at the University of Bergamo, Italy. She is co-organizer of national and international seminars and workshops. She is involved in national research groups on contact and change in the history of Mediterranean languages, and on linguistic representation of identity. Her research interests include Romance linguistics, Italian, socio-historical pragmatics, sociolinguistic variation, grammaticalization theory, and discourse and pragmatic markers. Maria Iliescu is Honorary Professor at the Romanistik Institut at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and Consultant Professor at the Philology Faculty of the University of Craiova, Romania. She is author and co-editor of many volumes, including Typologie de la morphologie verbale romane (with Louis Mourin) (Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbrück, 1991), Du latin aux langues romanes: choix de textes traduits et commentés (with Dan Slusanski) (Egert,

Notes on contributors

xiii

1991), and has published in numerous journals. Her publications have been partially collected in four volumes: Rumänisch: die östlichste Sprache der Romania (Buske, 2007) Pan- und Raetoromanica: von Lissabon bis Bukarest, von Disentis bis Udine (Ibidem, 2007); Miscellanea Romanica (Clusium and Scripto 2008); and Varia Romanica (Frank and Timme, 2013). Her research interests include Late Latin, comparative Romance linguistics, Rhaetoromanistic (Friulian), French, Romanian, and semantics. Michaela Livescu is Professor of History of Romanian Language and Romance Linguistics at the University of Craiova, Romania. Her publications include Locul limbii române între limbile romanice în perspectiva atlaselor lingvistice romanice: terminologia părţilor capului (Universitaria, 2003), Elemente de lingvistică romanică (Universitaria, 2003), Culegere de texte romanice vechi şi moderne comentate (Universitaria, 2004), and Varietăţile diatopice ale limbii române (Universitaria, 2004). She has also published papers in a number of edited volumes. Her research interests encompass Romanian linguistics, history of language, and Romance languages. Ana Cristina Maca´rio Lopes is Professor of Portuguese and General Linguistics at Coimbra University, Portugal. She is a researcher at the CELGA (Centro de Linguística Geral e Aplicada) of Coimbra University. She has published papers in Pragmatics, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, Oslo Studies in Language, Linguística: Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto, Diacrítica, and Estudos Linguísticos/Linguistic Studies, as well as in edited collections. Her research interests include semantics and pragmatics, especially discourse connections and pragmatic markers. Emanuele Miola is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy. He obtained his Ph.D in 2010 from the University of Pavia, carrying out dialectological research on a small endocentric community in the province of Cuneo (southern Piedmont, Italy). He has authored and co-authored books and papers on Italian dialects, onomastics, and youth language. Recently, he co-edited with Paolo Ramat the volume Language Contact and Language Decay: Socio-political and Linguistic Perspectives (IUSS, 2013). Piera Molinelli is Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Bergamo, Italy. Her areas of research include diachronic and historical linguistics, history of Latin and Old Italian, discourse and pragmatic markers, grammaticalization, language contact, and multilingualism. She is the author of Fenomeni della negazione dal latino all’italiano (La Nuova Italia, 1988). She co-edited the volumes Ars linguistica (Bulzoni, 1998), Comunicare nella torre di Babele: repertori plurilingui in Italia oggi (Carocci, 2001), Synchrony and Diachrony: a Dynamic Interface (Benjamins, 2013), and Plurilinguismo e diglossia nella Tarda Antichità e nel Medioevo (SISMEL Il Galluzzo, 2013), and she has published a number of articles on Latin and Italian linguistics, multilingualism in the Latin world, historical contact linguistics, and sociolinguistics.

xiv

Notes on contributors

She is coordinator of Italian national research groups, and has organized national and international conferences on historical linguistics and sociolinguistics. Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen is Professor of French Language and Linguistics at the University of Manchester, UK. She is the author of two monographs, The Function of Discourse Particles (Benjamins, 1998) and Particles at the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues (Elsevier/Emerald, 2008). In addition, she has published a large number of articles and book chapters (in, among others, Journal of French Language Studies, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, Journal of Pragmatics, Language Sciences, Lingua, Linguistics, and Studies in Language). Her research interests include aspectual and discourse particles, negation, the semantics/ pragmatics interface, grammaticalization, and semantic/pragmatic change. Salvador Pons Borderı´a is Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the University of Valencia, Spain. He is the author of Conexión y conectores: estudio de su relación en el registro informal de la lengua (Valencia, 1998) and has published papers in the Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, Revista de filología española, Lingüística española actual, and Oralia, as well as in a number of edited volumes. His research interests include spoken language, approximatives, and the synchronic and diachronic studies of discourse markers. Mihaela Popescu is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Romance Linguistics, General Linguistics, and Latin at the University of Craiova, Romania. She received her Ph.D in 2006. In her dissertation she carried out a comparative study on the expression of potential and irrealis in Latin, French, and Romanian. She has been a visiting scholar at Charles de Gaulle the University, Lille 3 (2002), Denis Diderot University, Paris 7 (2009), and the University of Rome 3 (2011). She is co-organizer of national and international conferences on historical linguistics and lexicology. In 2013 she published her postdoctoral thesis The Future and the Conditional in Romance Languages: A Morphosyntactic and Semantic Approach from a Diachronic Perspective. She has also published papers in Revue de linguistique romane, Revue roumaine de linguistique, and Zeitschrift für französische Sprach und Literatur, as well as in a number of edited volumes. Her research interests include historical linguistics (history of Latin, Old French, and Old Romanian, and grammaticalization) and French borrowings in Romanian. Mario Squartini is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Turin, Italy. He is the author of Verbal Periphrases in Romance: Aspect, Actionality and Grammaticalization (Mouton de Gruyter, 1998), guest-editor of a special issue of the Italian Journal of Linguistics on ‘Evidentiality between lexicon and grammar’ (2007), and has published papers in Lingua, Linguistics, Studies in Language, Folia Linguistica, Linguistic Typology, Romance Philology, Vox Romanica, Revue romane,

Notes on contributors

xv

and Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. His research interests mainly focus on the semantics and pragmatics of verbal categories (tense, aspect, modality, evidentiality). Corinne Rossari is Professor of French Linguistics at the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland. She is the author of two monographs, Les opérations de reformulation: analyse du processus et des marques dans une perspective contrastive français–italien (Peter Lang, 1997), and Connecteurs et relations de discours: des liens entre cognition et signification (Presses universitaires de Nancy, 2000). In addition, she has published a large number of articles and book chapters (in, among others, Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, Langue française, Linguisticæ Investigationes, Revue Romane, Cahiers de linguistique française). Her research interests include argumentation, especially in relation to discourse markers from the standpoint of theories of grammaticalization, modal forms pertaining to evidentiality, polyphony in relation to theories of linguistic argumentation, and lexis in relation to syntactic and semantic mechanisms involved in different varieties of French.

1 Discourse and pragmatic markers from Latin to the Romance languages: New insights CHIARA GHEZZI AND PIERA MOLINELLI

1.1 Introduction Functional markers operating within the pragmatic domain are extremely common in interaction. These items are often used by speakers strategically in communicative exchanges, and can perform a number of functions which index discourse organization, the relationship with the interlocutor, and the speaker’s stance. The present book focuses on different classes of markers in Romance languages, sometimes also considering Latin, and includes research studies that describe recurrent peculiar properties of elements which foster the development of pragmatic functions. The volume integrates analysis based on case studies, with two editorial chapters that consider the topic in relation to the state of current scholarship (Chapter 2) and summarize new insights (Conclusion). In the volume, synchronic and diachronic approaches are balanced in order to describe recurrent morphosyntactic, semantic, and textual properties of markers, taking into consideration both the paths that characterize their diachronic developments and the synchronic comparison of their uses in genealogically related languages. The discussions call into question also the types of process that characterize the development of these markers, such as the widely debated notion of grammaticalization, raising a number of crucial theoretical and methodological issues in the debate on the interface between grammar and discourse in closely connected languages. The volume gathers contributions from scholars who in recent years have researched in Romance linguistics the relationship between synchronic properties

2

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

of functional markers and their patterns of development, moving from the morphosyntactic properties of their lexical sources. The various contributions have benefited from the discussion which originated in the colloquium ‘Segnali discorsivi tra latino e lingue romanze’. During the colloquium, and now in the volume, the relationship between formal properties of lexical sources and types of pragmatic function developed emerges as central, and one which determines the different classes of functions performed. In particular, pragmatic values acquired by markers seem to cluster around discourse structuring vs interactional functions. Formal properties of source lexemes have a role in triggering specific patterns of development, and corresponding functions, within the linguistic system considered. In particular, verbal and adverbial sources, which are represented respectively in the two parts of this volume, constitute privileged sources for Romance markers. Pragmatically-oriented studies describe these functional signals, and corresponding pragmatic functions, in terms of discourse markers or pragmatic markers. Different theoretical approaches, methodological choices, or languages considered are often reflected in divergent terminological choices. Most recent discussions on discourse vs pragmatic markers revolve around some key issues, which we shall elaborate on in this introduction, highlighting the contribution made by the present volume.The scholarly debate has so far been enriched by a number of theoretical and methodological approaches which cannot be dealt with in detail here, but which nevertheless represent the starting point of our studies. We will deal with these key issues in the following section, and introduce the structure and the content of the volume in section 1.3.

1.2 Key issues in the study of functional markers A first group of themes which have been widely discussed in relation to functional markers concerns the synchronic description of the nature and properties of markers, the distinction between uses that perform discourse-structuring functions, and uses that index the speaker’s stance and her relationship with the interlocutor. From Schiffrin (1987), scholars have shown a growing interest in exploring synchronically the classes of functions of markers within specific languages, and in debating theoretical approaches, methodological and terminological choices.1 In particular, a large number of studies have been devoted to detailed descriptions of uses and functions of different classes of markers in English.2 As far as the Romance languages are concerned, specific studies are fewer, and privilege a contrastive 1

Cf. Jucker and Ziv (1998), Fraser (1996), Aijmer (2002), Fischer (2006), to name but a few. Pioneering studies were Jucker (1995), Traugott (1995b), and Brinton (1996), who also analyse diachronically the development of specific pragmatic functions. A much higher number of papers has enriched this line of research, also with reference to other languages. 2

Markers from Latin to the Romance languages: New insights

3

approach investigating pragmatic functions developed by cognate markers in genealogically related languages.3 The present volume contributes to this line of investigation, as it includes studies on such more-studied Romance languages as French, Spanish, and Italian, but also gathers contributions on Romanian markers, and corresponding pragmatic functions, that have not so far been frequent objects of analysis compared with cognates in the more frequently studied Romance languages. Similar considerations are also true for other Romance varieties or languages, as in the case of some Gallo-Italic varieties, and to a lesser extent for Portuguese. In this volume the contributions dedicated to Romanian markers and to Piedmontese Regional Italian will show how the analysis of markers in less-studied Romance languages or varieties can shed light on common developments, on the recurrent nature of some pragmatic changes, and on the potential role of contactinduced phenomena. Within a synchronic approach, some chapters address issues of the interaction between the context of use and the polyfunctional nature of many markers. A point of common interest is that differing analyses, with or without a contrastive approach, show that many markers can perform different functions in different contexts, but are also polyfunctional within the same context. A second group of issues concerns diachrony, which has proved to be highly relevant in accounting for the polyfunctional nature of many markers. These issues have to do with the diachronic development of pragmatic functions of markers in genealogically related languages, and with the relationship between the functions they perform (discourse-organizational vs socio-interactional) and the morphosyntactic properties of source lexemes. Diachronically-oriented studies have previously taken into consideration the historical development of pragmatic functions associated with specific markers (cf. Hansen and Visconti 2009). This volume contributes to this line of research, as it concentrates on diachronic patterns of evolution of markers and on their spread, taking into consideration languages which have all developed from a common ancestor (i.e. Latin). Such patterns typically imply a development from fully morphosyntactic items to reduced forms with procedural rather than conceptual meaning (cf. Sperber and Wilson 1995). As mentioned in section 1.1, within the Romance languages common sources for functional markers include in particular verbs and adverbs. Morphosyntactic 3 Studies with a synchronic and contrastive approach focused on Romance languages include Drescher and Frank-Job (2006), Khachaturyan (2011a), and Borreguero Zuloaga and Gómez-Jordana Ferary (2014). Early studies on Latin include Risselada (1993) and Kroon (1995). There are meanwhile numerous papers devoted to the analysis of specific pragmatic features within one or more Romance languages. To name but a few: Fagard (2012); Waltereit (2006a), (2006b), and (2002); various studies by Gaétane Dostie and Hansen on French; studies carried out on Spanish by the Val.Es.Co. group (cf. Pons Bordería this volume); and studies on Italian by Bazzanella.

4

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

peculiarities of lexical sources of markers can be extremely relevant in the development of characterizing functions, as shown for instance by Lamiroy and Swiggers (1991) in relation to pragmatic functions developed by Romance imperatives. This volume moves further in this direction: different contributions with a diachronic approach not only take into consideration individual markers within different Romance language, but also compare them with Latin formal and functional sources. As the various analyses show, investigation of the patterns where the original Latin pragmatic functions, and corresponding forms, developed into Romance markers is extremely interesting, as they are characterized by a cyclic nature. The study of the diachronic development of pragmatic functions of markers in the Romance languages takes advantage of the long diachrony, available at least in written corpora, of a well-attested language like Latin, which offers a deeper diachronic layering compared with other more frequently studied languages such as English. Indeed, the study of Latin makes possible both onomasiologic and semasiologic analysis, which help to uncover patterns of development of Latin functional and formal sources. A third group of issues addressed in this volume concerns the relationship between the diachronic developments of markers and the synchronic functions they perform within different, but genealogically related, languages. The analysis will show that the high frequency of both verbal and adverbial sources, together with their formal properties, has an impact on the development of specific pragmatic functions (e.g. the development of discourse-organizational vs socio-interactional functions). Contributions in Parts I and II respectively show how the evolution of functions can be fruitfully connected to morphosyntactic properties of source lexemes. This outcome emerges if one integrates synchronic and contrastive analysis of functions performed by cognate markers with the diachronic analysis of their processes of evolution. Moreover, the integration of synchronic and diachronic analysis of markers within their specific contexts of use shows that the study of the evolution of functional categories can benefit from the most recent advances in linguistic theory, and can contribute to the debate on the nature of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, and on the role of intersubjectification in pragmatico-semantic change. While chapters revolve around the issues cursorily outlined above, some additional relevant questions discussed relate to:  

 

how new pragmatic functions of words become entrenched in a language; how pragmatic functions correlate with other morphosyntactic features (e.g. position in the sentence, type of sentence, original semantic meaning) or more generally with discourse and conversation structure; how other phenomena (e.g. language contact) can interact with functional developments; how and why forms, deriving from utterance interpretation, may develop pragmatic functions.

Markers from Latin to the Romance languages: New insights

5

1.3 Overview of contributions to the volume Developments of functional markers have been studied from very different theoretical positions, as mentioned above, and call into question widely debated notions such as grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, as well as subjectification and intersubjectification. Similarly, the terminological choices adopted by different scholars to refer to functional markers (e.g. discourse markers and/or pragmatic markers) also subsume diverging theoretical approaches. These issues will be addressed by Chiara Ghezzi in Chapter 2, which is meant as a contextualizing introduction that sets out the premises for the theoretical and methodological framework adopted thereafter. The chapter gives an overview of research on the development of pragmatic functions from the point of view of Romance languages, while at the same time introducing notions and terminology relevant to the discussion in the book. Each succeeding chapter presents case studies in different Romance languages and deals with a number of issues relating to various topics such as the pragmatic polyfunctionality of the items, their diachronic patterns of evolution, and the morphosyntactic properties of markers vis-à-vis their lexical sources. The book is organized around two thematic Parts (I and II) that focus on markers derived from verbs and from adverbs, respectively. The aim of each Part is to highlight functional and formal similarities of markers derived from verbs or adverbs within different Romance languages in order to uncover (borrowing words from physics) both the ‘mechanics’ and the ‘mechanisms’ of change. By ‘mechanics’ we mean the description of language change (kinematics), and the whole system of forces affecting language developments, i.e. processes and causes behind a pragmaticalization path (dynamics); by ‘mechanisms’ we signify properties of contexts and source lexemes that foster change at the beginning or at different stages of a process. We believe these two terms capture very well the idea that all linguistic phenomena represent forces in perpetual motion. Part I is devoted to deverbal markers. In Chapter 3 Maria Iliescu takes a comparative and synchronic perspective, analysing morphosyntactic and semantic properties which characterize pragmatic functions associated with imperatives of visual and auditory perception in French, Italian, and Romanian. Such expressions are used pragmatically in all these languages as attention-getters, and their common core is constituted by the fact that they involve not only sight and hearing but also cognition. Iliescu shows that, although the typology of the semantic domains involving the verbs of sense perception is identical in the three languages, there are elements that are specific to each language and that affect the types of pragmatic function performed by the verbs. In Chapter 4 Adriana Costachescu also takes a synchronic and contrastive approach, considering pragmatic functions of pragmatic and discourse markers in

6

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

the light of a conversational approach. Her research highlights the conversational implications involved in the use of some disagreement markers developed from verbal phrases in French and Romanian (e.g. Fr. assez ‘(that is) enough’, ça suffit ‘that’s enough’, tais-toi ‘stop talking’, or Rom. destul ‘(that is) enough’, gata ‘(that’s) plenty, enough’, lasă prostiile ‘stop talking nonsense’, taci din gură ‘shut up’, încetează ‘stop it’). She analyses functions and contexts of occurrence of these markers in the light of Grice’s theory of conversation. In the two languages the use of such markers not only challenges the Cooperative Principle but also partially violates the conversational maxims. This conclusion suggests both that the Cooperative Principle is too strict and that disagreement markers are interactionally relevant. The two following chapters adopt a diachronic perspective and deal with the development of courtesy markers. In Chapter 5, Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli describe how Latin verbs quaeso and rogo ‘I ask, I pray’, and Italian verbs prego ‘I pray’ and chiedo ‘I ask’, developed politeness-related functions, and discuss these in relation to the notion of pragmatic cycles. Through the analysis of diachronically balanced corpora of Latin and Italian, the authors analyse micro-processes and conditions that foster the gradual pragmaticalization of the markers, describing morphosyntactic contexts, textual and pragmatic properties of the verbs involved, as well as the relationship between pragmaticalization and the evolution of forms into politeness devices. In particular, they show how similar pragmaticalization patterns are at work in both languages, as only one of the verbs in each is fully pragmaticalized (Lat. quaeso, It. prego), and how these patterns can be considered a pragmatic cycle. The pragmatic development of Latin rogo, absent in Italian, is instead attested in Romanian, and Michaela Livescu in Chapter 6 offers a diachronic and sociolinguistic in-depth analysis of the development of the Romanian courtesy marker mă rog ‘please’, originally derived from the verb a ruga ‘to pray’. Through the analysis of the morphosyntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties of the lexical source, Livescu traces the pragmatic development of the marker, illustrating the functional values that it progressively acquired in different communicative contexts. The analysis of contexts of use and corresponding functions shows not only that the marker is today highly polyfunctional and completely pragmaticalized in Romanian, but also that it has been in the language for a relatively long time with equal frequency in different regional varieties. The first part of the volume, devoted to deverbal markers, closes with a chapter by Salvador Pons Bordería, who considers both the theoretical implications and the linguistic peculiarities of developments of Spanish o sea lit. ‘or be-SBJV’. In Chapter 7 Pons Bordería integrates the synchronic description of pragmatic functions performed by this reformulation marker in modern Spanish with a description of its diachronic development from early Spanish. The development of different pragmatic functions of o sea is analysed with reference to a theory of discourse units that

Markers from Latin to the Romance languages: New insights

7

classifies the different structural configurations fulfilled by the marker. This theory proposes a framework for the diachronic evolution of o sea and a model for more thorough description of other pragmaticalization paths. Part II focuses on markers from adverbs, and opens with a discussion on the evolution of Latin iam ‘already’ that unfolds through three chapters and different languages. In Chapter 8 Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen offers an analysis of the medieval French particle ja ‘now, as of this moment’ (< Latin iam), showing that it frequently occurs in medieval texts, where it is highly polyfunctional. However, its range of functions only partially overlaps with those of its Latin etymological source and of its modern French descendants. Through the analysis of diachronic developments of functions performed by the marker, Hansen highlights how functions developed gradually from source meanings relating to temporal and aspectual traits towards pragmatic meanings involving counterexpectation and dialogicity. Finally, elaborating on motivations that led to the disappearance of ja in modern French, she also comes to envisage a cyclic pattern of pragmaticalization. Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola in Chapter 9 take further the analysis of the Romance descendants of Latin (de) iam ‘already’, exploring the pragmatic values acquired by Fr. déjà and Piedmontese Regional Italian (PRI) cognate già. Both adverbs, employed as discourse markers, are recurrent in interrogative contexts, where they are used to ask for the repetition of information. These patterns of pragmaticalization are analysed within different European languages through an areal survey that frames the following analysis. The authors show that the pragmatic value developed by PRI già has to be understood in terms of a process of pragmaticalization induced by contact with French. They also propose that this is possible by virtue of the propensity of both déjà and già to acquire multiple functions, which makes them good candidates to undergo multiple processes of pragmaticalization. Mario Squartini in Chapter 10 closes the analysis on the Romance cognates from Latin (de) iam. The chapter focuses on the use of modern French déjà in direct questions as a pragmatic downtoner, and on its cognate in regional varieties of northwestern Italian. Squartini complements the analysis in Chapter 9 by demonstrating that, despite areal similarities, French and Piedmontese Italian also show significant differences as far as the pragmatic interpretation of this interrogative use is concerned. The synchronic comparison between French and regional Italian is diachronically reappraised, interpreting the formation of the marker as a gradual development along the pragmaticalization cline starting from discourse marking of information status (given/new information) and eventually leading to generalized pragmatic hedging of illocutionary force. In Chapter 11 Ana Cristina Macário Lopes considers the diachronic development of the modern Portuguese discourse marker aliás, whose source is an adverb meaning ‘or rather or better’, to understand its synchronic polyfunctionality and, subsequently, to question the theoretical framework of grammaticalization. She shows that

8

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

this particular marker does not follow the regular cline posited for many discourse markers in grammaticalization studies, as it does not show a horizontal pathway of diachronic development. Instead, aliás develops a network of related meanings and functions which seems to capture better the inherently layered semantic structure of the adverb. The empirical evidence provided highlights the need to rethink the hypothesis of a single path in the development of discourse markers and to find alternative accounts. In Chapter 12, through a synchronic and contrastive approach, Mihaela Popescu outlines the pragmatic behaviour of the Romanian adverb atunci ‘then’ and of corresponding French alors. She describes contrastively the pragmatic values of Rom. atunci vs Fr. alors in different contexts of occurrence. Developing from a primary temporal value, in both languages the adverbs are frequently used in argumentative structures, where they also perform pragmatic functions related to discourse structuring. Through examples from both languages it is shown that the anaphoric temporal meaning leads to multiple pragmatic values as a result of a radial evolution, which is traced intra- and interdiscoursively. Although Romanian atunci shows a variety of different pragmatic functions, it is less pragmatically marked compared with Fr. alors, especially in its metatextual values. Popescu concludes that the multiple meanings associated with the two lexemes, in conjunction with the context of occurrence, determine functional and language-specific differences. Corinne Rossari in Chapter 13 focuses on a group of French adverbial items with a concessive value—as is the case of Fr. certes ‘certainly’, en effet, effectivement ‘actually’, d’accord ‘OK’, and soit ‘or’—and investigates how their concessive nuance emerges in discourse. These items are highly polyfunctional, as they can express an agreement in a dialogic context and a concession in a monologic context. Moving from a pragmatic- and semantic-based analysis of each marker, Rossari interprets the emergence of concessive values on the basis of polyphonic constructions (i.e. constructions expressing two point of views or ‘voices’). Their concessive use is not the outcome of an evolution in their meaning, but originates from their integration into one particular discourse configuration, as the concessive value results from a contrast between a content presented as previously conceived, and thus accepted, and a content presented as endorsed. In the concluding chapter, Piera Molinelli takes up the main topics within the volume, highlighting the shared insights of an integrated approach to comparative developments of discourse and pragmatic markers in Romance languages. She considers the peculiarities of developments giving rise to functional items in Romance languages in the light of different lines of research which constitute this volume. Terms and processes discussed in Chapter 2 are here redefined on the basis of formal peculiarities and similarities in developments of different sources (i.e. verbs and adverbs). These notions are compared in order to highlight new insights that this volume brings to the scholarly debate on the subject.

Markers from Latin to the Romance languages: New insights

9

Altogether, we believe this volume offers a wide spectrum of approaches to identifying different classes of functional marker in relation to their lexical sources and to discussing the development of discourse and pragmatic markers, underlining, in a contrastive perspective, the regularities of processes in genealogically related languages, to account for the role of both the synchronic and the diachronic dimension, and also for their integration.

2 The development of discourse and pragmatic markers CHIARA GHEZZI

2.1 Introduction Functional items within the pragmatic domain constitute a formally heterogeneous class. They may be derived from verbs, adverbs, phrases, conjunctions, or whole clauses. There are for example verb-based courtesy markers like Lat. quaeso, It. prego, Rom. mă rog ‘please’, or attention getters like It. guarda, Fr. regarde, Rom. uite, Sp. mira, Port. olha ‘look’; adverb-based turn-taking markers like It. allora, Fr. alors, Rom. atunci ‘then’ or conversational markers like Fr. déjà ‘again’, It. già, Sp. ya ‘all right’ (see Squartini, Chapter 10); courtesy markers derived from phrases like It. grazie ‘thank you’ or Sp. por favor ‘please’; conjunctions like It. ma ‘but’; and whole clauses like Fr. s’il vous plaît ‘please’. The properties of these functional items have been the subject of extensive debate that took its point of departure from Schiffrin’s (1987) groundbreaking work. Because of the nature of the units involved, the synchronic study of their functional properties within a communication system, together with the diachronic analysis of their specific paths of development, has promoted a wide discussion on the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. As for the synchronic description and classification of these items, studies initially concentrated on describing the functions performed by these elements, on assigning suitable labels, and on classifying their prototypical morphosyntactic properties (cf. Fischer 2006). Subsequently, the specifics of their diachronic development have fostered discussion regarding the nature of the relationship between the outcomes of these changes and their original lexical sources, and the (dis)similarities between functional units operating within the domain of pragmatics or grammar (Erman and Kotsinas 1993; Traugott 1995b; Dostie 2004; Hansen 2008; Rossari, Ricci, and Spiridon 2009).

The development of discourse and pragmatic markers

11

Morphosyntactic, distributional, and semantic properties of lexical sources play a crucial role in diachronically determining paths of development and in synchronically shaping pragmatic functions within the linguistic system. While at the synchronic level all sources come to index procedurally1 some features of the context of interaction, diachronically many functional items develop from propositional meanings and often coexist with their lexical sources. This is for instance the case for attention getters, which all coexist with verbs of perception in their literal and cognitive extended meanings.2 Moreover, if it is true that such items constitute a formally heterogeneous class of elements, as hinted above, it is also true that in Romance languages many items are derived from verbs or from adverbs. Beginning with the prototypical functional and formal properties of these pragmatic items, this chapter outlines different theoretical positions on notions, approaches, and methodologies that are relevant in shedding light on the synchronic functions performed by these items (section 2.2), on the peculiarities of their diachronic developments in Romance languages (section 2.3), and on the interrelation between the morphosyntactic properties of source-lexemes and the functional developments that characterize these pragmatic items (section 2.4).

2.2 Defining discourse and pragmatic markers Pragmatic functional items cannot be defined formally, as pointed out, since both noun-based expressions, such as It. grazie, and verb-based forms, like Eng. thank you, perform similar functions. In addition, such elements can consist of one-word, phrasal, or clausal elements. Courtesy markers again represent a good case in point, as Romance languages display all types of form, such as It. prego, Rom. mă rog, Sp. and Port. por favor, and Fr. je vous en prie, s’il vous plaît, all with the meaning ‘please’. This volume focuses on discourse-pragmatic functions performed by several verbs (Fr. regarde, Rom. uite, It. guarda ‘look’; Lat. quaeso, It. prego, Rom. mă rog ‘I pray’, Sp. o sea ‘or be-SBJV’), by verb-based phrases, such as Fr. assez, Rom. destul ‘(that is) enough’, and adverbs (Med. Fr. ja, Fr. déjà, It. già lit. ‘already’, Rom. atunci, Fr. alors ‘then’, Port. aliás ‘or better’, Fr. certes ‘certainly’, en effect ‘indeed/certainly’, soit ‘all right’). A variety of case studies will show that it is possible to identify patterns of correlation between the synchronic functions performed by the markers and the formal properties of the source-lexeme.3 1

Cf. Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) distinction between conceptual and procedural encoding. Fedriani, Ghezzi, and Van Olmen (2012) offers a typological study of the distribution of attention getters derived from verbs of perception, while Iliescu (Ch. 3) discusses the extended cognitive meanings of perception-based Romanian, French, and Italian attention getters. 3 During the research, interesting features of noun-based sources have also emerged as in the cases of It. grazie and Fr. merci ‘thanks’. The analysis of these features on the basis of the classification emerging from these initial investigations would be worthy of special attention in future research. 2

12

Chiara Ghezzi

The label ‘pragmatic marker’ has often been used as a cover term to describe functions associated with this range of heterogeneous forms precisely to underline the fact that the meaning of these items is functional in nature, as it has its origin in the communicative exchange. Fraser (1996: 168) stresses this property, defining a ‘functional unit’ as any signal that has an effect at the communicative level (as opposed to the strictly propositional level). In addition, Sperber and Wilson (1995) differentiate between conceptual and procedural encoding of meaning. The procedural level of encoding is characterized by the fact that a linguistic element points to some feature of the context of interaction. Therefore procedural meanings involve (or are related to) different, but crucial, situational dimensions which pertain to corresponding discourse levels.4 These levels include:    



   

the ideational structure (propositional relations or ideas, e.g. cohesive relations, topic relations, and functional relations); the action structure (the way in which speech acts relate to preceding, following, or intended actions); the exchange structure (turn-taking mechanisms and the alternation of sequential roles); the information state (management of knowledge and meta-knowledge, i.e. what the speaker and hearer know about information and what they know about their respective knowledge); the participant framework (the speaker–hearer relationship, the various ways in which speakers and hearers can relate to each other, including relations between the speakers’ turns), the social identity of the speakers (their degree of power and social distance within the communicative exchange); the type of social act performed (e.g. a request or an offer); the type of communicative activity (e.g. arguing); and the speaker’s stance (e.g. affective and/or epistemic).

The relationship between the pragmatic functions performed by items and their situational dimensions can be accounted for in terms of gradient rather than discrete correlations, as items involved are prototypically multifunctional both paradigmatically and syntagmatically. Paradigmatically, the same item, depending on position, intonation, and contextual and co-textual factors, can perform various, even opposite, functions (cf. Pons Bordería,

4 A detailed overview of different discourse levels is given in Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen (2011); see also Schiffrin (1987).

The development of discourse and pragmatic markers

13

Chapter 7). Syntagmatically, the same element within a given context often indexes several discourse planes at once, thus simultaneously performing different functions.5 Consider for instance the use of Italian cioè, lit. ‘that is’ in the examples below. In (1) cioè operates as a reformulation marker, and its pragmatic function points to the plane of ideational structure. In (2) its reformulation value is employed strategically by the speaker to hedge a potential offence. Therefore cioè in this second context also indexes the plane of the participants’ framework in relation to the social value of the act performed. (1) diversi reati sono stati riformati, riformati, cioè sono stati cambiati da una legge (LIP) ‘a number of offences have been reformed, reformed, that-is, they have been changed by law’ (2) A: sì è simpatico però eh dai cioè non e’ un cretino insomma B: cioè è un po’ è un egoista diciamo no? (LIP) ‘A: yes he’s nice, but, come on, I mean, he’s no fool, actually B: that-is, he is a bit, he is selfish, let’s say, isn’t he?’ Identifying and separating the functions performed by these items is relevant but not always feasible, as different discourse planes are often indexed at once. This is why the analysis of their diachronic development can be helpful in explaining this characterizing multifunctionality. However, it is equally relevant to consider that synchronically their functions are encoded through different linguistic strategies. In Romance languages in particular, a speech act can be hedged for reasons of politeness by means of a particular intonation, the use of a specific marker (It. sei egoista ‘you are selfish’, sei un po’ egoista ‘ you are a bit selfish’, sei egoista, penso ‘you are selfish, I think’), or through the choice of a person/tense/mood, each of which carries a particular nuance of meaning (It. sei egoista ‘you are selfish’, sei egoista, direi ‘you’re selfish, I would say’, diciamo ‘you, sei egoista, are selfish, let’s say’). Speakers strategically use these pragmatic functional units in several argumentative activities that can be clustered around three macrofunctions. In particular, speakers seek acceptance from their interlocutors in relation to (a) the discouse/text itself, (b) the social act of speaking, or (c) themselves. These three macrofunctions involve discourse and textual cohesion and coherence, social cohesion, and personal stance, as schematized in Table 2.1. Sometimes it is difficult, and fruitless, to unequivocally identify the main function of a marker in a given context (cf. cioè in (2)) precisely because different strategies are at work and

5

See Bazzanella and Borreguero Zuloaga (2011) on the interrelation of paradigmatic and syntagmatic multifunctionality in Italian and Spanish, and Bazzanella (2001) on peculiarities of Italian multifunctional markers.

14

Chiara Ghezzi

TABLE 2.1 Pragmatic functions and discourse planes Macrofunction

Focus on

Discourse planes indexed

Textual cohesion and coherence

Discourse structure and the act of speaking: markers index the relationship between the propositional content of utterances and texts



Social cohesion

The social act of speaking: markers index the relationship between the interlocutors



The speaker: markers index the speaker’s stance toward the discourse, the interlocutor, the context of interaction



Personal stance

Ideational structure Action structure  Exchange structure  Information state 

Exchange structure Participant framework  Social identity of speakers  Type of social act performed  Communicative activity 

Action structure Information state  Participant framework  Speaker’s stance 

corresponding discourse planes are being indexed simultaneously in a complex network. The reverse is also true, as the same discourse plane may be indexed by markers performing different functions (cf. the bold discourse planes in Table 2.1). Although the separation of different discourse planes is not always feasible, for heuristic purposes it is important to explain different functions and strategies as a clustering of macrofunctions. Such interpretation allows us to identify the motivations that may prompt speakers’ choices, in relation to different forms at their disposal, to reach their interactional goals. Moreover, this schematization has the advantage of identifying clusterings of multifunctional markers depending on the relationship between the function performed and the discourse plane indexed. The multifunctionality of these pragmatic items also represents a major problem in classifying them and describing their properties. Their synchronic pragmatic multifunctional status can be derived from the progressive diachronic bleaching of the original lexical sources. This peculiarity has prompted compilers of reference grammars to classify some of them as interjections, i.e. as conventionalized linguistic signs at the interface between pragmatics and lexicon which are:   

partially or wholly opaque in meaning; void of inflectional properties; crystallized and used in highly conventionalized and routinized contexts (Ameka 1992);

The development of discourse and pragmatic markers  

15

context-bound signs indexing elements in the extralinguistic context (Ameka 2006); and simultaneously lexemes and utterances (Wilkins 1992).6

This classification has been questioned recently on several occasions (cf. Norrick 2009; Culpeper and Kytö 2010). So-called interjections largely escape rigid categorization, as they are inherently polyfunctional, typically result from earlier semanticopragmatic changes, and can partially overlap with other notions which are the result of a more controversial and recent debate in which scholars often tend to use the terms ‘discourse marker’ or ‘pragmatic marker’ with overlapping meanings. The lively nature of this terminological debate7 now makes it possible to give a more systematized definition of different items, depending on the macrofunctions they perform. In this volume, the term ‘discourse marker’ is mainly used to refer to elements that index the structure of discourse, functioning as discourse-cohesive devices that stress intra-discourse relations and specify how the message or its content is related to the preceding and following discourse or the extralinguistic situation. As case studies in this volume show, in Romance languages these markers are frequently derived from adverbs and can perform a vast array of sub-functions. For instance, they can be used as focusing devices (Fr. déjà and It. già: Hansen, Fedriani and Miola, Squartini in Chapters 8, 9, and 10); comment and rectification markers (Port. aliás: Macário Lopes, in Chapter 11); markers of topic opening or closure (some uses of Rom. atunci, Fr. alors: Popescu in Chapter 12); and concessive markers (Fr. soit, effectivement: Rossari, in Chapter 13). In contrast, the term ‘pragmatic marker’ is here predominantly used to refer to items that have an (inter)subjective meaning. This class of elements includes markers that index the speakers’ social relationship to interlocutors or that index the speakers’ subjective expression of stance in relation to the content of the utterance or to the context of interaction. Pragmatic markers of the second type include, for instance, reduced epistemic parentheticals (It. credo, Fr. je crois ‘I think’, It. non so, Fr. (je) sais pas, Sp. no sé ‘I don’t know’) and some uses of reformulation markers such as Sp. o sea ‘or be-SBJV’ (Pons Bordería in Chapter 7), but also adverbs like là with a reinforcing meaning in là franchement ‘frankly’ (Smith 2006). Pragmatic markers of the first type are characterized by an intersubjective value and may include attention-getting devices (It. guarda, Fr. regarde, Rom. uite ‘look’: Iliescu For a detailed description of properties of interjections, see Ameka (1992; 2006) and Wilkins (1992). The number of different labels which have been used to refer to these pragmatic items is indicative of the vitality of the debate. Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen (2011) cite, among others, ‘discourse markers’, ‘discourse particles’, ‘pragmatic markers’, ‘pragmatic particles’, ‘pragmatic operators’, ‘pragmatic expressions’, ‘non-referential indexes’, ‘void pragmatic connectives’, and ‘mystery particles’. 6 7

16

Chiara Ghezzi

in Chapter 3 and Ghezzi 2012), expressions of cooperation or disagreement (Rom. a lăsa ‘stop’ or Rom. destul ‘enough’: Costachescu in Chapter 4), courtesy markers (Lat. quaeso, It. prego ‘please’: Ghezzi and Molinelli in Chapter 5, and Rom. mă rog ‘please’: Livescu in Chapter 6), and expressions with injunctive and phatic values (e.g. markers derived from imperative forms of movement or exchange verbs: Lat. age, It. dai ‘come on’, It. to’, Fr. tiens ‘look’, Sp. vaya, Fr. allons ‘come on’: Fedriani and Ghezzi 2013). As for interjections, in line with Norrick (2009), interjective uses of pragmatic functional items are considered here as a subclass of pragmatic markers that express a speaker’s current mental state, attitude, or reaction toward a situation or the interlocutor.

2.3 Defining processes: functional developments and pragmatico-semantic change Developments of discourse and pragmatic markers are frequently fostered by interactional and contextual factors associated with pragmatico-semantic change. In these contexts, conversational invited inferences, which lead to (inter)subjectification and context-induced reinterpretation of meanings, are central to the development of pragmatic values. Pragmatic use in context, polyfunctionality of items, contextual ambiguity, and strategic interaction play a crucial role in triggering pragmaticosemantic change (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991; Traugott and Dasher 2002). Therefore, the study of evolutionary patterns of development involving discourse and pragmatic markers is relevant in accounting for their polyfunctional nature. Moreover, the analysis of these processes in the following chapters sheds light on the relationship between the pragmaticalized item and its source lexeme, since pragmatic polyfunctionality can be explained as the result of a polysemic source lexeme or as the diachronic semantic change of a lexeme which synchronically is homonymic with the source. These diachronic processes call into question notions such as subjectification and intersubjectification (Traugott and König 1991). The former can be associated with changes that give rise to the expression of the speaker’s beliefs and stances toward the content or the context level of interaction (cf. Hansen 2008). The latter is connected with changes that increasingly encode the speaker’s attention to the cognitive stances and social identities of the addressee (cf. Traugott 2003a). Examples of such developments within Romance languages are represented by the increasing number of subjective values associated with epistemic parentheticals (It. credo, Fr. je crois ‘I think’ < ‘believe’) or stance adverbs (Fr. franchement ‘frankly’), and by the intersubjective values of courtesy markers (Lat. quaeso, It. prego ‘please’: Ghezzi and Molinelli in Chapter 5, and Rom. mă rog ‘please’: Livescu in Chapter 6).

The development of discourse and pragmatic markers

17

Recent lines of research that have analysed various pragmatic functions fostered by subjectification or intersubjectification show that both subjectivity and intersubjectivity should be conceptualized in terms of subtypes, depending on the discourse planes they index (cf. De Smet and Verstraete 2006; Ghesquière, Brems, and Van de Velde 2012). These studies show that different types of intersubjectivity, and the related discourse planes, correspond to the macrofunctions identified for the discourse and pragmatic markers which are studied empirically here. Both subjectivity and intersubjectivity can be described in terms of speaker- or addressee-relatedness. Subjective, or diachronically subjectified, expressions all relate to the linguistic expression of the speaker’s involvement within a communicative exchange. Speakers do not merely transfer propositional content, they always express their subjective points of view, attitudes, feelings, and evaluations (i.e. their stance) in relation to propositions expressed in their utterances, the context of interaction, or their interlocutors. Beginning with Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) pioneering study, it is possible to identify a variety of functions which can be described in terms of speaker-relatedness.8 Two of these, namely the ideational and interpersonal components, are particularly relevant in relation to the development of discourse and pragmatic markers, since they correspond roughly to the distinction between locutionary and illocutionary components. The first involves the description of a propositional content ‘situated in the speaker’s subjective belief-state/attitude toward the situation’ (Traugott and König 1991: 208–9). The latter deals with the positioning of the speaker with respect to this representation and her interaction with the interlocutor (De Smet and Verstraete 2006: 385). Both components may have a role in discourse planning, and consequently in discourse cohesion, but also come into play in relation to the social and contextual levels of interaction. On the other hand, intersubjective, or diachronically intersubjectified, expressions can be fruitfully correlated with the pragmatic functions acquired by discourse and pragmatic markers and, consequently, with the discourse planes they index. Intersubjective values emphasize the relationship between speaker and hearer; they may favour the development of meanings which are attitudinal and motivated by politeness. One of the parameters of politeness encodes the speaker’s appreciation

8 Different types of subjectivity can be derived from Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) ideational, textual, and interpersonal components (see also De Smet and Verstraete 2006). The first relates to the linguistic resources chosen to represent the propositional content of a speech events, the second to mode (i.e. the internal organization and communicative nature of a text), and the third to phenomena of a subjective or intersubjective nature that convey the speaker’s attitude toward the proposition.

18

Chiara Ghezzi

and recognition of the addressee’s social status. This implies that intersubjectified meanings operate on the social level of discourse in the form of attention to the interlocutor’s face or image needs, associated by the speaker with social status and identity (e.g. the Romance courtesy markers cited above). Intersubjective values may also be responsive in nature if the speaker aims at eliciting from her interlocutor a behaviour or a speech act, thereby again enhancing cooperation, as well as discourse continuity and coherence (e.g. turn-taking devices or question tags soliciting the hearer’s agreement such as It. no? ‘isn’t it?’, It. capisci?, Fr. compris?, Rom. aţi priceput? ‘do you understand?’). Similarly, these latter values of intersubjectified meanings, drawing attention to the act of uttering, also set up a referential relation to some stretch of discourse, and therefore acquire textual values. The position of these textual meanings in the textual > subjective > intersubjective continuum is a debated issue in the literature,9 and a number of counterexamples to this cline have been adduced (see Narrog 2012: 35ff.). Textual meanings entail orientation toward the utterance, i.e. discourse or text, and some have a prominent hearer-oriented nuance which favours and facilitates the interpretation of the message by the hearer. The interactive component of these meanings guides the addressee through the text. Likely candidates are focus and backgrounding devices as well as elements creating a joint focus of attention between interlocutors.10 Importantly, the focus of this joint attention can be situated not only in the surrounding context but also in the surrounding co-text. In their discourse use, many Romance attention getters, for instance, may develop a secondary text-internal reference, with cataphoric or anaphoric value, focusing the hearer’s attention not on the context of interaction but on some stretch of previous or following discourse. In these functions they convey intersubjective meanings because they are used by the speaker to negotiate the tracking of discourse referents with the interlocutor, to ensure joint attentional focus by the speaker and the hearer. This is the case, for example, for Italian vedi ‘you see’ in (3), through which the speaker invites her interlocutor to process the upcoming example as illustrative, and relevant, for understanding how to correctly interpret problems translators frequently have to face. (3) ecco questo vedi per esempio è un problema questo scrittore che si è messo a fare questa comparazione no? tra il latino e l’inglese ha dovuto affrontare dei problemi di traduzione (LIP) ‘so this, you see, for example, is a problem, this writer, who began making this comparison, didn’t he?, between Latin and English, had to face problems of translation’

9

A recent overview of different theoretical positions on the topic and a clear representation of different values of intersubjective meanings are given in Ghesquière, Brems, and Van de Velde (2012). 10 The notion of joint attention is discussed in Diessel (1999; 2006).

The development of discourse and pragmatic markers

19

In this perspective, therefore, intersubjectivity is not limited to the encoding of attitudinal aspects, but also concerns the strategic interaction between interlocutors. It reflects the active role of the speaker in orienting and guiding the hearer in her interpretational tasks (Carlier and De Mulder 2010: 269). Textual intersubjectivity is also relevant in explaining the metatextual values of discourse or pragmatic markers. Again, it is important to take into consideration the discourse planes over which these markers may operate, as they may refer (a) interactively to the discourse-structuring and textual dimension of the communicative negotiation of a ‘text’ between speaker and hearer (e.g. the case of textual deixis, of focus markers and, more generally, focusing devices, and of reformulation markers), or (b) interactionally to the acknowledgement of the evaluative and attitudinal dimensions of this communicative negotiation (e.g. epistemic parentheticals and other classes of hedges, which, depending on their focus, also fall into the category of attitudinal intersubjectivity). The interactive dimension thus groups together elements that ‘help to guide the reader through the text’, whereas the interactional dimension is concerned with elements designed to ‘involve the reader in the text’ (Hyland 2005: 49). Different functions and types of intersubjectivity can therefore be synthesized as in Table 2.2 below. These subtypes of intersubjectivity have only heuristic value, and should not be interpreted as discrete categories delimited by strict boundaries, since the same linguistic element or construction can convey different types of intersubjective meaning at the same time, depending on its degree of syntactic freedom and its position within the utterance.11 Diachronic patterns of intersubjectification analysed in relation to Romance languages reveal that these developments in some cases confirm the existence of the cline objective > subjective > intersubjective meanings, while in other cases pragmaticosemantic changes seem to point to an evolution which goes in the opposite direction, or at least in a direction not predicted by this cline (see Molinelli, ‘Conclusion’). Although Traugott herself has explained this pattern of development as a ‘robust tendency’, various cases studies in this volume contribute to a more varied portrayal in relation to both subjectification and intersubjectification in Romance languages. Several chapters, beginning with case studies of discourse and pragmatic markers in Romance languages, analyse patterns of the evolution of forms in relation to the progressive intersubjectification of meanings. Such studies provide arguments for or against the existence of this cline, with the aim of representing how different pragmatic functions emerge in related languages.

11

Consider e.g. the lines of research on the different functions performed by Romance modal particles vs discourse and pragmatic markers (Detges and Waltereit 2009; Coniglio 2008), or the studies of the role of left and right periphery on pragmatic functions (Beeching and Detges, forthcoming).

20

Chiara Ghezzi

TABLE 2.2 Types and functions of intersubjectivity Type

Main function

Responsive Eliciting a intersubjectivity behaviour from the interlocutor

Aims

Focus

Example

Cooperation between interlocutors

Context of interaction

Attention getters (Sp. mira, Port. olha, It. guarda, Fr. regarde, Rom. uite) Back channels (It. capisci?, Fr. n’est-ce pas?)

Eliciting a speech Discourse continuity and act from the coherence interlocutor Attitudinal Paying attention Social cohesion intersubjectivity to the presumed interlocutor’s social self

Act of uttering Context of interaction

Politeness markers (Lat. quaeso, It. prego, Fr. s’il vous plaît, Rom. mă rog)

Involving the Textual interlocutor in interactional intersubjectivity the text

Co-construction of Propositional Hedges (It. un po’, discourse content Fr. un peu), epistemic parentheticals (Fr. vous savez, It. sapete)

Textual Guiding the interactive interlocutor intersubjectivity through the text

Co-construction of Propositional Reformulation content markers (It. cioè, Sp. discourse, o sea), focus and discourse cohesion and coherence backgrounding devices (It. appunto), textual deixis

2.4 Defining processes: grammaticalization and pragmaticalization Morphosyntactic and semantic patterns of change which are implicated in the development of grammatical units (e.g. Romance future morphemes, auxiliaries) have been at the centre of scholarly discussion over the last century (cf. Meillet 1912). The identification of the prototypical properties of these changes revolves around the notion of grammaticalization. Within the last thirty years, studies of grammaticalization have also incorporated discussions on the specifics of the development of functional units within the discourse domain. There has been a shift of attention from focus on formal morphosyntactic aspects of language change, reflected in morpheme-based approaches, to interest in reconstructing semantic-pragmatic and functional changes, which tie in with the functional approach and with attention to context and constructions.12 12 See Lehmann (1995), Heine et al. (1991), as representative of the first; Hopper and Traugott (2003), Traugott (1995b), as representative of the second.

The development of discourse and pragmatic markers

21

The whole debate has attracted in-depth studies, and the intention here is merely to invoke notions which are specifically relevant to the various contributions in this volume. This debate has led to the redefinition of the notion of grammaticalization or to the introduction of a new notion, pragmaticalization, to explain patterns of change that result in units operating within the discourse-pragmatic domain. Both notions centre on the nature of the outcomes of diachronic patterns of development and on the types of process involved. The term ‘grammaticalization’ itself has been both narrowly and broadly defined. In a narrow sense, the expression refers to a type of language change in which both lexical and grammatical elements develop further grammatical functions (Lehmann 1995). Within this perspective, grammaticalization is defined in terms of the autonomy of the linguistic sign, whereby a reduction in autonomy raises the degree of grammaticalization: ‘[grammaticalization is a] process in which [a linguistic sign] loses its autonomy by becoming more subject to constraints of the linguistic system’ (Lehmann 2004: 155). Thus in this narrow construal, grammaticalization is intended as a complex set of interrelated changes which lead to the development of grammatical functionality. The study of patterns of change in various languages led to the identification of parameters to account for the degree of grammaticalization of elements: the more such parameters are found, the more advanced the process is. These parameters represent the outcome of a functionalist perspective which assumes a gradient, not a discrete, distinction between lexical and grammatical categories. They include attrition, paradigmaticization, obligatorification, condensation, coalescence, and fixation (Lehmann 1985: 308–10). The system is to be read as a cluster of correlated features rather than a list of necessary and sufficient criteria. All parameters can be considered predictive of developments resulting in morphosyntactic items operating below the sentence level, as in the case of the Romance future morphemes cited above. However, some of them, namely fixation, obligatorification, and coalescence, have proved problematic when applied to marginal phenomena at the intersection between grammar and pragmatics, as in the case of the development of connectives (Giacalone Ramat and Mauri 2008), discourse and pragmatic markers (Molinelli 2010; Hansen 2008; Brinton and Traugott 2005; Waltereit 2002; Traugott 1995b), and modal particles (Diewald 2006; also Squartini in Chapter 10). Moreover, the specifics of functional developments whose outcomes operate within the discourse-pragmatic domain in many cases challenge traditional definitions of grammaticalization like the one cited above. Because of these peculiarities, another position on the nature of grammaticalization insists on the need for a broader view of its construal, as in the case of Traugott (2010a), who argues for two views of grammaticalization, namely ‘traditional grammaticalization’, understood as reduction, and grammaticalization as semantic-pragmatic expansion. This complementary construal of grammaticalization

22

Chiara Ghezzi

invokes the redistribution and pragmatic enrichment of meaning rather than loss— expansion rather than reduction—and focuses on types of functional change rather than on development of morphosyntactic forms. The two traditions are characterized by divergent conceptualizations of functional units and, consequently, by different interpretations of the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. In the first, pragmatics lies outside the core grammar; in the second, pragmatics is part of grammar. One crucial issue in this regard pertains to the categorization and definition of the functional units involved—what pragmatic and discourse markers are and what distinctions can be drawn in relation to elements such as tense markers, articles, number and gender agreement markers, and units like lexical nouns, verbs, and adjectives. This categorization requires the refinement of domains of linguistic analysis such as pragmatics and grammar to give a clear identification of what can be considered a prototypical grammatical element, and why. The crux of the problem is how one defines pragmatics and grammar and which criteria one considers relevant, essential, or optional as their defining features. Pragmatics is intended here in a wide sense, covering patterns of interaction in social situations and within cultural systems (cf. Claridge and Arnovick 2010: 166). The domain of grammar, sensu stricto, does not include pragmatics if one considers it to be constituted by paradigmatic, obligatory structures which as a common core display some type of relational meaning (Diewald 2011a: 366). Within this perspective, grammaticalization can be conceptualized as reduction. On the other hand, a wider view of grammar which includes pragmatics considers it to structure all levels of language, encompassing communicative and cognitive aspects. This view of grammar entails not only phonology, morphosyntax, and truthfunctional semantics, but also interaction with cognitive abilities in the speaker– addressee negotiation of meaning. Such abilities include information processing, discourse management, focusing, topicalization, deixis, and discourse coherence (Traugott 2003a: 626). From this perspective, grammaticalization can be conceptualized as semantic-pragmatic expansion. These differentiations and conceptualizations of grammar and its domains tie in inherently with Diewald’s recent claim (2011b) that units of grammar and units of pragmatics are built on different principles of organization. The term ‘pragmaticalization’ was introduced precisely to distinguish the two domains.13 This divergent conceptualization of the development of functional units within the pragmatic domain considers them to be the result of a different process (i.e. pragmaticalization), which is defined as a linguistic change ‘in which a full lexical item (noun, verb, adjective or adverb) or grammatical item (coordinator, subordinator, etc.) changes category and status and becomes a pragmatic item, that is, an item

13

See Erman and Kotsinas (1993).

The development of discourse and pragmatic markers

23

which is not fully integrated into the syntactic structure of the utterance and which has a textual or interpersonal meaning’ (Dostie 2009: 203).14 The conceptualizations of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization represent two different perspectives on the same phenomenon, and suggest the need to redefine grammaticalization properties so as to include the development of pragmatic functional units and to extend the notion of (grammatical) obligatoriness to ‘communicative obligatoriness’ (Diewald 2011a: 368).15 The position taken in this volume goes in this direction, although it is more nuanced. Differences in terminology, and corresponding definitions, are indicative of theoretical positions on the nature of grammar and pragmatics. The non-prototypical patterns of development of functional units such as discourse and pragmatic markers represent a privileged point of observation of functional developments that enables a bridging of the domains of grammar and of pragmatics, which are traditionally considered separately (see also Ariel 2008; Narrog and Heine 2011). Several case studies in this volume show that the results of these patterns of development function within discourse (e.g. discourse and pragmatic markers) or the proposition (e.g. modal particles), but all forms develop from fully propositional (or referential) meanings to abstract meanings with a pragmatic value. In a gradient continuum from sentence to discourse, functional units can be oriented to signal discourse cohesion (discourse markers), social cohesion (pragmatic markers), or the speaker’s stance toward the message or the interlocutor (pragmatic markers, modal particles). Units are subject to different types of rule and constraints that operate within the continuum sentence–discourse, which constrain their pragmatic functions as well as their morphosyntactic properties.16 Within this perspective, non-prototypical diachronic developments of discourse and pragmatic markers can be explained through a more comprehensive view of grammar which subsumes pragmatic functions (Diewald 2011a: 384). To achieve their interactional goals, speakers may use items strategically in ways that may deviate slightly from their conventional meaning, exploiting some nuance of meaning in the ‘bridging context’ of interaction (Heine 2002). This co-optation

14 This perspective is well represented in Erman and Kotsinas (1993), Aijmer (1997), Waltereit (2002), Dostie (2004), Drescher and Frank-Job (2006), Ocampo (2006), Hansen (2008), and Norde (2009), even though the debate on the nature of these types of change and on terminological issues is still open (see Beijering and Norde 2012; Molinelli 2010). 15 See also discussions in Degand and Simon-Vandenbergen (2011) and in Lauwers, Vanderbauwhede, and Verleyen (2010). 16 Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva (2011) argue for two separate domains of grammar, ‘sentence grammar’ and ‘thetical grammar’. The former is organized in terms of propositional concepts and clauses, its major dimension being the syntactic hierarchy; the latter entails words, phrases, clauses, or chunks that do not form syntactic constituents but that have a complex structure involving clause combining. Theticals have the context of interaction in their scope (the speaker and hearer, their relationship to one another, to the text, and to the context of interaction).

24

Chiara Ghezzi

is in some cases instantaneous and may be instantiated only once by a single speaker;17 in other cases it can be characterized by slower and more stable patterns of development widespread in the linguistic community (see Traugott and Dasher 2002). Co-optation represents a central and ubiquitous mechanism for the selection of new markers. Such elements may eventually undergo pragmaticalization to various degrees, thus progressively losing their original conceptual meaning (see Norde 2009; Kaltenböck et al. 2011). The synchronic coexistence of many markers with their lexical sources can be explained on the basis of these strategies. Speakers may select different markers with similar purposes: a clause (It. per fare un esempio; non so ‘for example’; ‘I don’t know’), a word (It. tipo; diciamo ‘like’; ‘let’s say’) or any other unit is co-opted (or redefined) for use with a pragmatic value. As various case studies in this volume show, specific developments of markers suggest a distinction between the mechanisms and the mechanics of change. The former have to do with the semantic properties of lexical sources and with morphosyntactic contexts of use of markers, the latter concern strategies that speakers use to select new items with a functional value. For instance, as is shown in relation to deverbal courtesy markers (Ghezzi and Molinelli, Chapter 5) or to the Romance descendants of Lat. iam (Hansen, Chapter 8), it is possible to envisage circular, instead of linear, patterns of pragmaticalization (i.e. pragmatic cycles instead of paths; see also Molinelli, ‘Conclusion’). This differentiation between mechanisms and mechanics of change has the advantage of explaining the many idiosyncrasies in the use of pragmatic functional categories, but it also seems to account for the variation in the extent of diffusion of some forms as opposed to others, on the basis of degree of pragmaticalization and social acceptance (including idiosyncrasies associated with language contact situations and with sociolinguistic attitudes).

2.5 Morphosyntactic properties and functional developments As the discussion of theoretical notions implicated in the development of discourse and pragmatic markers has underlined, one of the aims of the present volume is to show, through case studies of synchronic uses and diachronic developments of markers belonging to Romance languages, that not all markers can be treated similarly, either in terms of functions performed synchronically within the linguistic system or in terms of diachronic developments. Both discourse and pragmatic markers may synchronically show different degrees of pragmaticalization, as only some coexist with their lexical sources. A case in point is represented by different uses of It. guarda ‘look’ and dai ‘come on’.18 Both can be 17

See Kaltenböck et al. (2011).

18

See Ghezzi and Molinelli (forthcoming).

The development of discourse and pragmatic markers

25

used as pragmatic markers and both coexist in the language with their lexical sources (the verb of perception guardare ‘to look’ and the verb of exchange dare ‘to give’). However, while the original semantic value of guarda remains even in its uses as pragmatic marker, dai has completely lost its original meaning of verb of exchange when it is used as an injunctive marker. Morphosyntactic properties associated with the lexical source of the markers have a relevant impact on the development of specific pragmatic functions. In other words, mechanisms of change, i.e. rules operating at the sentence level, constrain or favour the development of functions at the discourse-pragmatic level. Moreover, formal features of elements undergoing pragmaticalization suggest that ‘structural weight is inversely proportional to pragmatic subjective weight’ (Company Company 2006: 381). Discourse and pragmatic markers represent a formally heterogeneous class of elements that tend to be derived ‘from a more disparate set of sources than most grammatical items’ (Traugott 2010a: 110). Many Romance markers are derived from verbs and adverbs. Some examples also analysed in this volume include (a) verbs used as attention getters: It. guarda, senti (Manili 1986; Waltereit 2002; Kleinknecht 2008; Ghezzi 2012), Sp. oye, mira (Pons Bordería 1998; Cuenca and Marín 2000), Portuguese olha (Fagard 2010), Fr. regarde, écoute (Dostie 2004), and Rom. uite (Iliescu 2008b; 2009; 2011); and (b) adverbs, with different discourse-marking functions: Fr. alors (Hansen 1998a; Degand and Fagard 2011), It. allora (Bazzanella et al. 2007), Sp. entonces (Bazzanella and Borreguero Zuloaga 2011), Port. então (Macário Lopes and Amaral 2006), Rom. atunci (Popescu, Chapter 12), or the Romance pragmatic descendants of Latin iam (Hansen 2000; 2002; Bazzanella et al. 2005; Hansen and Strudsholm 2008). Lexical sources operating at the sentence level progressively develop abstract and pragmatic meanings through specific processes in which it is possible to envisage such formal correlates as peripheral position in the utterance (Beeching and Detges, forthcoming), variable scope, fixation of form, and loss of syntactic capacities (Company Company 2006; Fagard 2010). Such formal correlates have proved highly influential in the development of specific pragmatic functions. In the case of deverbal Romance markers, it is possible to identify recurrent formal properties of the verb source pertaining to the order of elements, logical type, tense, person, and number, whose fluctuations are signals of a process that has reached different degrees of pragmaticalization (see Molinelli, ‘Conclusion’).19 Similarly, the nature of at least bivalent predicates makes verbs good candidates for conveying intersubjective

19 Cf. Pons Bordería (1998) and Company Company (2006) on Spanish; Rossari (2006) and Oppermann Marseaux (2008) on French; Dostie (2004) on Canadian French; Waltereit (2002; 2006a) on Italian; Fedriani and Ghezzi (2013) on Greek, Latin, and Italian; Fagard (2010) on attention getters in Romance languages.

26

Chiara Ghezzi

values and meanings, and for expressing subjective meanings (i.e. ‘emotive function’ in Jakobsonian terms). Adverbial sources, on the other hand, seem to be more related to discourse-structuring values. This is one of the reasons why this volume attempts to develop a comparison between functional units derived from verbs and their adverbial counterparts; this comparison may in fact be fruitful in highlighting prototypical properties of pragmatic markers vis-à-vis discourse markers. In the evolution of predicates, and sometimes of whole sentences, two outcomes emerge: (a) units remain productive forms of a morphosyntactic and semantic paradigm which, in some contexts, may also develop a pragmatic function (performatives: Lat. rogo, It. chiedo ‘I ask’); and (b) units develop into fossilized and opaque pragmatic elements (from performatives, courtesy markers: Lat. quaeso, It. prego ‘please’: see Ghezzi and Molinelli, Chapter 5). As discussed several times in this volume, the functional outcomes of markers entail diachronic gradualness and constructional (form–meaning) changes that occur in sequences of micro-changes. Synchronically, speakers may use functions embedded in the micro-context of interaction and in the sociocultural macrocontext. Diachronically, the degree of pragmaticalization of such forms can be detected through analysis of the degree of frozenness of forms (i.e. their morphosyntactic productivity) and through the investigation of changes in their frequency. With regard to the Romance languages, little systematic attention has been paid to the integration of diachronic and synchronic perspectives.20 It is, however, productive to study these developments systematically, taking into consideration not only individual markers but also Latin formal and functional sources. In other words, it is important to investigate how Latin pragmatic functions and the corresponding forms came to develop into Romance markers. For instance, one path of development of Latin verbs considered in this volume regards the Latin performative quaeso; this verb, along with its ordinary main verb uses, also performed pragmatic functions as a courtesy marker, yet in Romance languages these functions were gradually taken over by other forms derived from various grammatical sources, such as It. prego, Rom. mă rog, and also Fr. s’il vous plaît, Sp./Port. por favor. Each chapter in this volume represents a case study of one or more Romance languages that discusses the relationship between the morphosyntactic properties of the sources of functional units, their synchronic pragmatic functions, and/or their diachronic evolution. The concluding chapter discusses in detail the relationship between the mechanisms and the dynamics of change.

20

Although some studies focus on specific Romance languages, they have rarely been considered as a group (cf. Hansen 2008; Drescher and Frank-Job 2006; Lamiroy and Swiggers 1991); furthermore, few studies have concentrated on Portuguese markers and even fewer on Romanian ones.

Part I Verbs as Pragmatic Markers

3 Call markers in French, Italian, and Romanian M A R I A IL I E S C U

3.1 Introduction In this chapter, call markers are understood as all linguistic means used by a speaker to draw the attention of the interlocutor. From the morphological point of view, they are a heterogeneous class which comprises deictic adverbs (having the function of an interjection) and verbs of perception, mostly in the imperative mood. This study investigates pragmatic values acquired by the verbs of visual and auditory perception in French, Romanian, and Italian. In particular, it analyses how perception-based call markers are employed in three Romance languages in order to draw attention to the similarities and dissimilarities among these languages. The primary source of this analysis was represented by French examples taken primarily from written sources (FRANTEXT, TLF, scientific articles and Google texts). For Romanian, the examples were taken from dictionaries (DA, DLR, T/M, DEX)1 and partly from a corpus still in the process of being completed at the Institute of Linguistics in Bucharest.2 This research has also benefited from a corpus of spoken Romanian, CORV, gathered by Laurenţia Dascălu-Jinga (2002),3 whose verbal forms and interjection use were also researched on Google. The texts which are not original were translated or reviewed by native speakers. Italian examples were added later and translated by a student whose first language is Italian.

1

In the examples, only the direct source and the name of the author have been quoted (FRANTEXT, TLF, DA, etc.). For older texts year of appearance, as best possible, has been indicated. 2 The corpus was provided to the author by Victor Celac, a researcher at the same institute. This source is cited by the abbreviation ‘Ling. Inst.’ followed by the name of the author. 3 Quoted from the fragments included in Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (ed.), Interacţiunea verbală în limba română actuală. Corpus (selectiv): schiţă de tipologie (IVRLA, 2001).

30

Maria Iliescu

This study has benefited at the point of departure from several works4 which, within the domain of discourse and spoken language research, have reached some solid conclusions regarding the extralinguistic and conceptual characteristics of the latter, most importantly that  



the nature of the perception changes according to the manner of perception: visual, auditory, tactile, gustative, and olfactory; generally, verbs of perception can, in addition to their reference to a psychological process, designate an intellectual or cognitive activity or a certain physical state or behaviour;5 seeing and hearing rank first among the five senses in Western culture, and are the only ones which can send and receive intellectual, cognitive, and linguistic information (Shyldkrot 1989: 289). This importance is reflected in language in particular by the existence of several pairs of verbs which distinguish between involuntary or non-agentive perception and voluntary or agentive perception.

The inventory of French, Italian, and Romanian verbs comprises: (a) verbs of visual perception (i) non-agentive: Fr. voir, Rom. a vedea, It. vedere, all meaning ‘to see’; (ii) agentive: Fr. regarder, Rom. a privi, a se uita, It. guardare, all meaning ‘to look’; (b) verbs of auditory perception (i) non-agentive: Fr. entendre, Rom. a auzi, It. sentire,6 all meaning ‘to hear’; (ii) agentive: Fr. écouter, Rom. a asculta, It. ascoltare, all meaning ‘to listen’. Leaving aside the basic referential meaning, the first subcategory, non-agentive verbs, generally refers to faculties which are purely intellectual, objective, or informative, whereas agentive verbs imply an equal dimension of subjective comprehension or receptivity (emotional, appreciative, or evaluative perceptions). If one looks in detail at their etymology, except for the Rom. a privi, which is of Slavic origin and has a rather unclear semantic evolution,7 all the verbs belonging to the two domains are of Latin origin. The etymological origin of (re)garder and of guardare is wardon, borrowed by Latin from Germanic languages (cf. Iliescu 2006). The etymology of the Rom. a se uita (< a uita) is the Latin *oblitare, from which it inherited its first meaning, ‘forget’, as in French oublier. Since the 17th century 4

In particular Enghels (2007) and Shyldkrot (1989). For this meaning of verbs in French (according to dictionaries), see Shyldkrot (1989: 285). 6 It is dealt here with the Fr. ouir and the Italian udire, both having the same Latin etymology as the Rom. a auzi, but being displaced by the Fr. entendre < Lat. intendere and the Italian sentire < Lat. sentire ‘hear’. 7 From a phonetic point of view, the Slavic word seems to be the etymon of the Rom. verb a privi, but difficulties arise in terms of semantic evolution. Several hypotheses (see Ciorănescu, DER s.v.) have been proposed, whence the most plausible starting-point seems to be ‘to judge correctly in court’, the structures meaning ‘to see clearly, to gaze’ evolving from this. 5

Call markers in French, Italian, and Romanian

31

it has been attested as a reflexive verb having the agentive visual meaning ‘look at’ (cf. Iliescu 2008a; 2008b; 2009). The basic Latin meaning has been preserved only in the case of videre and auscultare in all three languages. Only Romanian has remained faithful to audire, metonymically replaced in French since the 17th century by intendere (> entendre)8 and in Italian by sentire (> sentire), the Latin hypernym for perceptions.9 In the following sections, visual (section 3.2) and auditory (section 3.3), perception verbs will be analysed and compared taking into consideration their deictic perceptive values, their cognitive extension, and their pragmatic values comparing their uses in French, Romanian, and Italian. For each class of verbs, the meaning of agentive and non-agentive forms will be highlighted. Section 3.4 analyses the correlations between the semantic class of perception verbs and the pragmatic values they can acquire in the three Romance languages analysed.

3.2 Verbs of visual perception The three languages considered codify through specific lexemes verbs of visual perception. The languages also codify linguistically the difference between nonagentive and agentive verbs. It is possible to identify three series of verbs corresponding to the three languages here analysed, namely Fr. voir ‘to see’ and regarder ‘to look’, It. vedere ‘to see’ and guardare ‘to look’, Rom. a vedea ‘to see’, a se uita and a privi ‘to look’. 3.2.1 Non-agentive verbs of visual perception Non-agentive verbs of visual perception in the three languages include: Fr. voir; Rom. a vedea; It. vedere. Willems (1983: 157–8) points out the distinction between non-agentive and agentive visual verbs: the perception encoded in French voir shows a successful process which opposes the perception in regarder, the latter indicating a neutral process in respect of its completion; by its nature, regarder implies an essentially physical perception, having a very reduced cognitive dimension, whereas the perception of voir is much less physical than cognitive. Within the field of visual perception, Fr. voir, It. vedere, and Rom. a vedea ‘to see’ have maintained the predominant role which was already specific

8

For the history of the French verbs ouïr, entendre, and écouter, see Blumenthal (2006). The disappearance of audire might be due to the form of the signifiant (the reduction of the diphthong and the disappearance of intervocalic -d- in French). 9

32

Maria Iliescu

to them in Latin (see García Hernández 1976). That explains why they display the widest semantic range and, implicitly, the greatest extension.10 The non-agentive visual verbs in the three languages have a primary deictic perceptive meaning. (1) a Fr. Ils ont des yeux et il ne voient pas. b. Rom. Ochi au şi nu văd! (T/M 832). c. It. Hanno occhi ma non vedono. ‘They have eyes but they don’t see.’ In the imperative mood these verbs have the meaning of the corresponding agentive verb, i.e. ‘look’. (2) a. Fr. Viens et vois! (Google) b. Rom. Vino și vezi! c. It. Vieni e vedi! ‘Come and see!’ In all three languages the verbs have also developed cognitive meanings. A group of these meanings is implied when the address to somebody also expresses an adhesion to or a confirmation of the interlocutor’s opinion. In such uses the verbs can be paraphrased by ‘believe me’, ‘(you) rest assured’, ‘(you) realize’, ‘you understand’. (3) a. Fr. Alors, voyez. Moi aussi je crois que c’est la vérité. (Cristea 1987: 239) b. Rom. Așa că vedeţi. Şi eu cred că e adevărul. c. It. Beh, guardi, anch’io penso che sia la verità. ‘You see, then. I also think this is the truth.’ (4) a. Fr. Vois-tu, il est au bout de son rouleau. (Cristea 1987: 250) b. Rom. Vezi, e la capătul puterilor! c. It. Guarda, è allo stremo delle forze! ‘You see, he is at his wits’ end’ The Italian translator here replaced vedi, the non-agentive visual verb, which is used in the other languages, with the agentive verb guarda, lit. ‘to look’. Another group of cognitive meanings is implied when an appeal to somebody expresses a request, a recommendation to see to something or to somebody. In such uses the verbs can be paraphrased by ‘to observe attentively’, ‘to take care of something or somebody’: Fr. voir à, voir de; It. vedere di; Rom. a vedea să. It remains

10 For the multiple functions and for the meaning of Lat. videre see Holmer (1970), and for Fr. voir, see Blumenthal (2006: 208, 215).

Call markers in French, Italian, and Romanian

33

to be seen to what extent these recommendations can be considered as an appeal to the interlocutor. (5) a. Fr. Voyez à nous faire souper, à nous loger. (Cristea 1987: 229) b. Rom. Vezi să ni se facă cina, și să avem unde sta. c. It. Veda di farci avere la cena e un posto dove alloggiare. ‘See that dinner is prepared for us and that we are provided with accommodation.’ In Rom. a vedea de with the same meaning but in another construction corresponds to the French avoir soin de and to It. curarsi di, both meaning ‘look after’. (6) a. Fr. Aie soin du cheval de F.! b. Rom. Vezi de calul Finului! c. It. Curati del cavallo di F.! ‘See to F.’s horse!’ In French it is relevant to pay special attention to the imperative form, 1st person plural, which can have an argumentative value, or can express an exhortation, an invitation to axiological or affective reflection, or dissatisfaction (Cristea 1986: 251). This time, the Romanian and Italian translations do not correspond to the French version: a visual verb is replaced by an auditory verb. In Romanian it is an agentive verb, in Italian initially a non-agentive verb that functions as a master-key or even as an agentive verb proper. Voyons, madame, . . . soyez raisonnable. Ça ne sert à rien de nier l’évidence . . . (Cristea 1986: 251) b. Rom. Ascultaţi doamnă, . . . fiţi rezonabilă. Nu ajută la nimic să negaţi evidenţa. c. It. Senta, signora, . . . sia ragionevole. Non serve a niente negar l’evidenza. ‘Listen, madam, be reasonable. It doesn’t help at all if you deny the evidence.’

(7) a. Fr.

Voyons, Maxime, ne restez pas toujours debout devant la fenêtre! [Vous barrez le jour] . . . (FRANTEXT, Colette) b. Rom. Ascultă, Maxime, nu sta mereu în picioare în faţa ferestrei! [ . . . ] c. It. Senta/Ascolti, Maxime, non stia sempre davanti alla finestra! [ . . . ] ‘Listen, Maxime, don’t always stay in front of the window! [ . . . ]’

(8) a. Fr.

3.2.2 Agentive verbs of visual perception Agentive verbs of visual perception in the three languages include Fr. regarder; Rom. a privi and a se uita; It. guardare. Having agentive character, these verbs occur as call markers mainly in the 2nd person singular and plural of the imperative mood.

34

Maria Iliescu

As regards the repertoire of agentive verbs of visual perception in the three languages, it is remarkable that, unlike French and Italian, Romanian has two visual agentive verbs in its inventory, i.e. a privi and a se uita. The former is attested with the meaning of agentive verb of visual perception from the 16th century; the latter represents the alternative and more frequent variant, attested with a visual meaning in the 17th century. The action expressed by a se uita is often shorter than that expressed by a privi, and implies a dynamic perceptive activity, more or less momentary, having the meaning ‘cast a glance’. The imperative uită-te, which became by assimilation uite-te, most frequently reduced to uite ‘look’ (distinct from uită ‘forget’), has undergone a process of grammaticalization very similar to that of the French verb voir, which can be used as deictic to emphasize. The Romanian uite has turned into an interjection (see DLR s.v.), almost synonymous with, but more familiar in style than, the typical deictic interjection iată. The French equivalent of uite, as a synonym of iată, is usually voilà ‘there is’. The transitive verb a privi implies a static, durative, and intense perceptive activity. Followed by a direct object it has, first and foremost, the meaning ‘to watch attentively, to observe by looking at’. The most significant difference between the Romanian verbs a privi and a se uita, used as call markers, consists in the fact that only the latter, a se uita, can also express cognitive meanings such as ‘believe’, ‘understand’, ‘realize’.11 As already mentioned, the style of a privi is generally more formal than that of a se uita. But even in the case of the deictic meaning ‘to try to see’, the choice between a privi and a se uita does not imply that the two verbs are in free variation. Depending on the lexical field of the direct object, it is evident to the speaker when to use one or the other. It is in general possible to see this in terms of collocations which contain expressions established over time. To give an example: it is possible to use the formula a se uita la ceas with the meaning ‘to check one’s watch to know the exact time’; the formula a privi ceasul means, instead, ‘to gaze at one’s watch, to contemplate it’ (cf. Iliescu 2011). Verbs of visual perception in the three languages, i.e. Fr. regarder, Rom. a privi/a se uita, It. guardare, have a primary agentive perceptive meaning which can be translated by ‘look, try to see’ (9): Regarde le ciel, regarde la couleur du soleil sur le tapis (FRANTEXT, Sartre). b. Rom. Privește cerul, privește culoarea soarelui pe covor. c. It. Guarda il cielo, guarda il colore del sole sul tappeto. ‘Look at the sky, look at the colour of the sun on the carpet.’

(9) a. Fr.

11 When they are not in the imperative mood regarder and a privi can have the meaning ‘to concern’: Ça ne me regarde pas. Asta nu mă privește ‘This does not concern me’. Cf. the It. non riguardare.

Call markers in French, Italian, and Romanian

35

Fr. regarder could be replaced by contempler ‘gaze at, contemplate’. In the Romanian example, it is possible to replace a privi with a se uita, despite the fact that it seems less appropriate because of the poetic style used in the context. Moreover, Fr. regarder, as an agentive verb, can be reinforced by another verb: in (10) there are two visual agentive verbs in Romanian, one agentive and one nonagentive in French, and in Italian guarda is reinforced by the second ‘master-key’ auditory verb senti, lit. ‘hear’. (10) a. Rom. Uită-te, privește la acea caricatură. (Inst. Ling., Donici) b. Fr. Vois, regarde (attentivement) cette caricature. c. It. Senti, guarda (attentamente) questa caricatura.12 ‘Look/Here, look closely at this caricature.’ The verbs of visual agentive perception under analysis here have developed cognitive meanings. Fr. regarde often introduces a fact which proves the truth of something which has been previously stated (Rossari 2006: 117) or expresses a request, some advice, a recommendation addressed to the interlocutor, as in je te prie lit. ‘I pray you’, croismoi ‘believe me’, tiens compte de ‘consider that’. In Romanian it is only uite that can be a cognitive-affective call marker; a privi is limited to the visual perceptive meaning (11): Regarde, j’en ai tué sept d’un coup, tout un essaim. (FRANTEXT, Sartre) b. Rom. Uite am omorât șapte dintr-o lovitură. Un roi întreg. c. It. Guarda/senti, ne ho uccisi dieci in un colpo solo, un intero sciame. ‘Look, I’ve killed seven at one stroke, an entire swarm.’

(11) a. Fr.

For the Italian translation, in (11) the translator used two Italian verbs, both the agentive visual perception verb (guarda) and its non-agentive auditory counterpart (senti). Fr. regarder and It. guarda and senti, when used with a cognitive meaning, no longer correspond to Rom. a privi, but only to a se uita (or to a asculta). In (12) the visual uite ‘look’ could be replaced by the auditory ascultă ‘listen’. (12) a. Rom. Uite /ascultă, întreabă și pe Mincu (Inst. Ling., Gârleanu). b. Fr. Regarde/écoute, demande aussi Mincu. c. It. Guarda/Senti, chiedi(lo) a Mincu. ‘Listen, also ask Mincu.’ This possibility of replacing a voluntary visual verb by a corresponding auditory verb also exists in other languages. Cognitive meanings bring together visual and auditory

12

The translator explained that It. vedi is not possible in this context.

36

Maria Iliescu

verbs of perception. When they convey a cognitive meaning, visual verbs become synonyms or, at least, parasynonyms. As call markers, auditory verbs are generally less polite and closer to the value of an imperative than visual verbs.

3.3 Verbs of auditory perception The three languages considered codify through specific lexemes verbs of auditory perception. As underlined for verbs of visual perception, these languages also differentiate between agentive and non-agentive verbs. Non-agentive verbs of auditory perception here considered are Fr. entendre; Rom. a auzi; It. sentire ‘hear’. Within the auditory verbs of perception domain, Fr. entendre corresponds to voir in the domain of visual perception. Likewise devoid of intention, the subject is generally non-agentive (see Blumenthal 2006: 214–15), which has as a result that imperativization and, consequently, the auditory type of address are impossible to achieve when the verb has as its basic meaning ‘to perceive by hearing’. Its addressive function is solely cognitive. A major difference between Fr. voir and entendre is that the referents corresponding to the objects of voir are independent of the act of perception, whereas in the case of entendre the interpretation of the referents is based on metonymic processes. In French, as in the case of voir, entendre can express its call marker function by the use of the 2nd person singular and plural, indicative, present tense. In this case, it takes the place of the agentive verb écouter and is often followed by an adverb or by a direct object (noun or clause). The situation of Rom. a auzi and of It. sentire functioning as call markers is identical to that of their French counterpart entendre. The only difference is morphological in nature, and derives from the fact that Romanian and Italian are ‘pro-drop’ languages—they do not need the presence of the personal pronoun accompanying the verb. A auzi and sentire are fourth conjugation verbs and their imperative forms are homonyms of present tense indicative mood forms. A auzi and sentire can be used with the meaning a asculta/ascoltare (like entendre for écouter in French), but the frequency of usage and the number of nuances of meaning are much higher in the case of a auzi and of sentire. In Romanian there is a stylistic difference between a auzi and a asculta. The former is more familiar than the second: that is why, in texts written in an elevated style, a asculta ‘listen’ cannot be replaced by a auzi. In all three languages the non-agentive auditory verbs share primary perceptive meanings (13):

Call markers in French, Italian, and Romanian

37

(13) a. Rom. Auzi . . . cucul cântă! Ieşi afară și-l ascultă ! (DA, Iarnik-Bârseanu) b. Fr. Écoute . . . le coucou chante! Sors pour l’écouter. c. It. Senti il cuculo che canta. Esci ad ascoltarlo! ‘Listen, the cuckoo is singing! Come out to listen to it!’ In some contexts non-agentive verbs (auditory and visual) can replace agentive verbs. This is the case of Fr. voir replacing regarder, or of entendre replacing écouter, and of It. sentire replacing ascoltare. In the following example in French non-agentive verbs are used (voir and entendre) instead of the verbs expressing a voluntary action (regarder and écouter), while in Italian the non-agentive sentire is used instead of the agentive ascoltare. In Romanian the substitution is more difficult; but it is true that (14a) is taken from a poetic text. Vois ces planètes [qui roulent en ordre, sans jamais se heurter . . . ]. Entends l’harmonie des sphères . . . (FRANTEXT, Sartre) b. Rom. Privește aceste planete [care se rostogolesc in ordine, f ără să se lovească . . . ]. Ascultă armonia sferelor . . . c. It. Guarda questi pianeti[ . . . ]. Ascolta/Senti l’armonia delle sfere . . . ‘Look at these planets . . . Listen to the harmony of the spheres . . .’

(14) a. Fr.

Cognitive meanings which are associated with non-agentive auditory verbs entendre, a auzi, sentire can be related to meanings as ‘understand’, ‘realize’ (15): (15) a. Fr.

Va te promener et remercie Dieu qu’on se charge de la besogne à ta place. Entends-tu? (Google) b. Rom. Du-te de te plimbă și mulţumește lui Dumnezeu că alţii fac treaba în locul tău. Auzi? c. It. Vattene! Sparisci e ringrazia il cielo che qualcun’altro fa il lavoro per te. Hai sentito? ‘Away with you, and thank God others do your job for you. Are you listening?’

The Romanian auzi and the Italian senti are more frequent and familiar than their agentive counterparts a asculta, ascoltare, and express a whole series of meanings. In the following examples they express indignation. It is remarkable that in the case of Italian the use of both the non-agentive auditory verb senti and the agentive visual verb guarda are acceptable. (16) a. Rom. Auzi, obrăznicie! (T/M, Negruzzi) b. Fr. Voilà, quelle impertinence! c. It. (Ma) Senti/Guarda che impertinenza! ‘Listen to that impertinence!’

38

Maria Iliescu

Both Rom. auzi and It. senti express a request or a piece of advice, but can also express an order. In (17) the marker is used cataphorically and precedes a warning. (17) a. Rom. Vezi, [pause] să nu-ţi iei niciodată mașină! (Google)13 b. Fr. Vois-tu, il ne faut jamais s’acheter une voiture. c. It. Guarda, non acquistare mai un’automobile! ‘Look, don’t ever buy a car!’/ ‘You see, you should never buy a car!’ Interestingly, the use of a visual verb instead of an auditory one generally triggers a decrease in intensity. Auditory verbs tend to be used with orders or legal obligations, as in the case of (18), where they are perceived as less polite than their visual counterparts: (18) a. Rom. Auzi/Ascultă, să nu-ţi iei niciodată maşină! (Google) b. Fr. Ecoute/Tu entends, il ne faut jamais s’acheter une voiture. c. It. Ascolta/Senti non mai acquistare un’automobile! ‘Listen, don’t ever buy a car!/ Don’t ever buy a car, do you hear?’ In the case of Fr. écoute, entendre would be possible only if one were to add the 2nd person pronoun (tu entends). This is not possible in Romanian, because the meaning would change. As for agentive auditory verbs, the forms studied for the three languages include Fr. écouter, Rom. a asculta, and It. ascoltare. Blumenthal (2006: 221) notes: On entend ce qui frappe l’oreille . . . On écoute ce à quoi on donne attention par l’ouïe; c’est un acte volontaire qu’on produit. [‘We hear what is striking to our hearing . . . We listen to those things that we pay attention to by hearing; we produce a voluntary act.’]

Like the other verbs of perception, agentive auditory verbs express a perceptive meaning, which is specific to them, and cognitive, mainly conclusive, informative, and argumentative meanings. The tone is close to that of an order or piece of advice aimed at changing the attitude or the action of the interlocutor. The addressing can also be didactic in nature. The three verbs share a primary referential meaning (cf. example 19). Je les ai entendues [les mouettes]. Écoute, elles crient. (FRANTEXT, Sartre) b. Rom. I-am auzit [pescărușii]. Ascultă, ţipă. c. It. Li ho sentiti [i gabbiani]. Ascolta, stanno stridendo. ‘I’ve heard the seagulls. Listen, they are crying.’

(19) a. Fr.

13 Without a pause, the pragmatic meaning changes and becomes synonymous to that in (17b), i.e. it turns into an order.

Call markers in French, Italian, and Romanian

39

Agentive auditory verbs have also developed different classes of cognitive meanings. These classes relate to conclusive meanings (20), argumentative meanings (21), and jussive meanings (22), respectively. Écoute, tu veux bien faire un effort, n’est-ce pas? (FRANTEXT, Sartre) b. Rom. Ascultă, vrei sa faci un efort, nu-i aşa? c. It. Ascolta, vuoi fare uno sforzo, vero? ‘Listen, you will make an effort, won’t you?’

(20) a. Fr.

(21) a. Fr. Écoute, à ta place, je ne lui dirais rien. (Dostie 1998: 93, 101) b. Rom. Ascultă, în locul tău, nu i-aș spune nimic. c. It. Senti/Guarda, se fossi in te, non gli direi nulla. ‘Listen, if I were you, I wouldn’t tell him a thing.’ (22) a. Rom. Ascultaţi! Vă rog puţină liniște! (p.c.) b. Fr. Écoutez! Je vous prie un peu de silence! c. It. Sentite/Ascoltate! Un po’ di silenzio per favore! ‘Listen! Let’s have some quiet, please!’

3.4 Conclusions Visual call markers are more frequent than auditory markers, because visual lexemes can be employed even in the auditory domain, but the opposite is rarely true. Within the two conceptual fields, i.e. the visual and the auditory, it is the non-agentive lexemes, less marked and implicitly having a greater extension, that prevail. They often replace their agentive counterparts. Call markers expressed by the imperative forms of the agentive verbs analysed in this chapter denote not only visual or auditory perception but also (except for the Romanian a privi) cognitive perception. It would be interesting to carry out research on the degree to which the cognitive meanings expressed by the verbs analysed here remain valid for all the verbs in the three languages even if the former are no longer used as call markers. As for the characteristics of the Romance languages analysed here, the typology of the two perceptive fields remains the same in all the three languages; nevertheless, each has its own specificity in this area. Starting from their perceptive referential meaning, all verbs, except for Rom. a privi, develop a wide range of cognitive meanings and nuances of meaning, which depend on the pragmatic context. To a certain extent, not only agentive and non-agentive verbs but also verbs with visual and auditory referential meaning are interchangeable. Generally speaking, on the one hand, the mobility of non-agentive verbs, having a larger extension, is higher than that of agentive verbs; on the other hand, it is verbs in the visual category that can more

40

Maria Iliescu

easily go beyond their specific semantic domain (which confirms the observations made by Shyldkrot 1989: 289). A proof of the open-ended semantic character of the verbs under discussion, also manifest in the neutralization of the semantic feature/+agentivity/, is the possibility of reinforcement by their own parasynonyms, even if, in most cases, the two verbs have a different initial marking in respect of agentivity, as in the case of Fr. écouter ‘listen’ and voir ‘see’. Romanian, unlike the other two languages, possesses two agentive visual verbs, a se uita and a privi, of which the latter has more limited functions and cannot therefore enter the cognitive sphere. A se uita ‘look’, a specifically Romanian word form, has an intermediate position between a vedea and a privi, which is observable in the French translations that oscillate between voilà and regarder. In French the adverb interjections voici and voilà partly block the functions of the verb voir as a call marker, which is less used than Rom. a vedea and It. vedere. The 1st person plural form of the same verb, voyons, is a particular case, since as a cognitive call marker it never corresponds to voir, but to écouter. Italian is characterized by a wide extension and, implicitly, by a high frequency of the agentive verb guardare and of the non-agentive verb sentire, which often function as parasynonyms and not as synonyms. According to Ghezzi’s (2012) data on normalized frequencies of use, the occurrence of sentire and guardare as call markers is increasing, depending exclusively on pragmatic (cognitive) functions, reaching 9.1% and 7.1%, respectively; this, as we can notice in the reduced corpus that we have worked on, obviously without exact statistics, surpasses the frequency of use of the corresponding verbs in French (entendre and regarder) and Romanian (a auzi and a se uita).

4 On disagreement markers in French and Romanian dialogue A D R I A N A C OS T A C H E S C U

4.1 Introduction This chapter examines the complex role played by disagreement and exasperation markers in dialogue, taking into consideration the interactional dimension of conversation according to Grice’s conversational maxims (Grice 1975). It analyses the semantic and pragmatic values of markers derived from verbal phrases, more or less elliptical of the verb, such as ça suffit comme ça ‘that’s enough’, assez ‘enough’, arrêtez ‘stop (doing that)’ tais-toi ‘be quiet’, zut ‘damn’ in French and their Romanian corresponding equivalents (destul or ajunge ‘(that’s) enough’, gata ‘that’ll do’, lăsa-o (moartă) ‘leave it’, taci ‘be, keep quiet’, încetează ‘stop (doing that)’. As regards the two important theoretical tendencies in the study of discourse markers, i.e. the pragmatic-functional approach and the semantic-contextual approach (Khachaturyan 2011b: 2), this study comes closer to the former. The elements expressing disagreement are pragmatically highly polyfunctional, as they operate both as discourse markers, indexing the structure of the text, and as pragmatic markers, signalling the speaker’s personal stance towards the interlocutor or the previous stretch of discourse. They seem to introduce a new dimension in the manifestation of the speaker’s subjectivity and stance in discourse—subjectivity resulting not only from his view of the world, his knowledge, his experience, and his perception (Khachaturyan 2011c: 97) but also from his psychological state of mind. If some authors (Garric 1996; Molnier and Levrier 1999) speak of ‘adequacy’ markers in case of words such as vraiment ‘really’, sûrement ‘surely’, the items studied here could be characterized as manifestation of the speaker’s ‘inadequacy’, putting into words his opposition to the discourse or to the behaviour of the person he is talking to. What is interesting in relation to this kind of discourse marker is that its use cannot be explained on the basis of Grice’s (1957; 1975) theoretical framework, which developed a

42

Adriana Costachescu

conversation theory based on harmony and agreement among all the participants in a certain conversation. Section 4.2 presents an overview of different markers analysed in the two languages. Section 4.3 is devoted to the analysis of Grice’s theoretical framework in relation to disagreement markers, while section 4.4 analyses the role of disagreement markers in French and Romanian. Section 4.5 considers the directive values of some disagreement markers, and section 4.6 describes two types of marker, Fr. assez and Rom. destul. Section 4.7 draws some conclusions, showing how disagreement markers enrich and reinforce Grice’s proposals.

4.2 Short linguistic description of French and Romanian disagreement markers The functions of discourse markers are often carried out by a large range of linguistic means, from adverbs to interjections. Although Khachaturyan (2011c) considers there to exist not only of a functional unity, but also of a formal unity within various classes of discourse markers, we think that this morphosyntactic unity exists only inside few microsemantic fields and in quite a limited manner. Drawing on a corpus of French and Romanian literary texts, a general picture is presented here of these manifestations, from lack of agreement to disagreement. 4.2.1 The French corpus In French, disagreement markers belong to several morphological classes, which have however all developed out of verbal phrases: adverbs, verbs in the imperative mood, impersonal verbs, or set phrases. All these elements are bound by their function: the speaker breaks off the other person’s discourse and manifests his dissatisfaction, sometimes even his annoyance. Here is a list of the basic disagreement markers: 

Assez ‘enough’, quantitative adverb, attested in French since the 10th century, comes from the Vulgar Latin *adsatis ‘(in) sufficient (quantity)’, which results from strengthening the word satis ‘enough’ by the preposition ad (DHF) Its most lively semantic development in Modern French concerns the idea of excess, of satiation, even of disgust or of reaction to something unbearable (DHF). As marker of an exasperated disagreement, assez expresses the speaker’s estimation that the conversation has lasted enough: ça (la discussion) a assez duré ‘this has gone on long enough’, assez! ‘that’s quite enough’, assez parlé/de discours, des actes ‘that’s enough talk, let’s have some action’, en voilà assez ‘enough is enough’, j’en ai assez ‘I have had enough’ (Collins and Robert). The examination of the contexts of use of assez shows that it frequently occurs with nouns that have as referent a discourse fragment which, in turn, usually

Disagreement markers in French and Romanian





43

justifies the interruption: assez de paroles (Émile Zola, Eugène Sue) ‘that’s enough talk’, assez sur ce sujet (Eugène Sue) ‘enough talk about this topic’, assez (parlé) pour aujourd’hui (Georges Bernanos) ‘enough (talk) for today’, assez causé (Georges Bernanos) ‘that’s enough talk’. In one occurrence, the adverb assez expresses the fact that the speaker has received a sufficient quantity of information (Assez, cher abbé. Je comprends (Balzac) ‘Enough, dear abbot. I understand’). The verb suffire ‘to be sufficient’ is also of Latin origin, coming from the verb sufficere ‘put under’ which, in its transitive constructions, means ‘be sufficient’. It is a verb which, ever since its origin, has had the meaning ‘to have the right quantity or the right force for doing something’. By extension, the phrase suffire à quelqu’un ‘be enough for somebody’ is used to mark the fact that the situation satisfies somebody; a later extension produced cela suffit ‘that’s enough’, then cela me suffit ‘that’s enough for me’, and finally suffit ‘enough’ in the 20th century, which expresses the fact that the speaker is irritated, or fed up with something (DHF). Phrases such as ça suffit (comme ça)! ‘that will do’ or, simply, suffit! ‘enough’ break off the conversation because the speaker is exasperated. Normally, this marker occurs alone, and our corpus contains few examples that include its justification, which differentiates it from assez: suffit les phrases (Céline) ‘enough talking’, allons, suffit, ne m’énervez plus (Benjamin) ‘come on, enough, don’t get on my nerves’. Two verbs, when used in the imperative mood, serve as markers of disagreement, namely se taire ‘to say nothing’ and arrêter ‘to stop’:  The verb se taire ‘to say nothing’ is attested in 980. The form derives from the classical Latin verb tacere ‘to say nothing, to be quiet’, which in Old French became taisir or taisier (DHF). From a semantic point of view, this meaning results from the reduction of its semantic area, since, according to DHF, in Old French the verb had the meaning ‘to refrain from doing something’; its specialization with regard to speech is attested only in 1230 and in Modern French is used to refer to keeping a secret. As discourse marker, se taire usually occurs in the imperative form (tais-toi, taisez-vous ‘be silent/silence!’) and, sometimes, in the subjunctive with injunctive meaning (quant à ce monsieur, qu’il se taise (Pagnol) ‘as for this gentlemen, he should be/keep silent’. By using this marker, the speaker distinctly interrupts the discourse of the person he is addressing. The exasperation is communicated not only by intonation but also by the occurrence of specific items: tais-toi, maudite! (Eugène Sue) ‘shut up, you damned woman’, tais-toi, donc (Arthur Bernède) ‘be quiet, will you?’ The speaker can justify his attitude by an explicative phrase (taisez-vous, je vous défend de discuter (Dorgelès) ‘be quiet, I forbid you to talk’, or by a universal judgement, which makes the imperative redundant (quand je parle, on se tait! (Crémieux) ‘when I speak, everybody silent’). Similar uses are attested in

44

Adriana Costachescu the instructions written on posters during the Second World War that can be found nowadays in literary texts describing that period: taisez-vous, méfiezvous, les oreilles ennemies vous écoutent (Beauvoir) ‘keep silent, be careful, enemy ears are listening’.  The verb arrêter ‘to stop’ is also of Latin origin, coming from classical Latin arrestare, derived from a preposition added to a verb (ad + restare) and meaning ‘be motionless’. If the verb is transitive and its direct object expresses a speech manifestation, the imperative form functions as a pragmatic marker. This complement is often used pejoratively, rendering the speaker’s exasperation: arrêtez votre charre (= ‘histoires’) (Simonin) ‘stop your fiction’, arrête ton babil/ ton cirque (Vigny) ‘stop your chattering/stop your nonsense’, arrête ton numéro (Le Breton) ‘cut the theatrics’, arrêtez vos conneries (Fallet) ‘stop your bullshit’.

4.2.2 The Romanian corpus The inventory of disagreement markers in Romanian is similar to the French one, but there are some differences in use. For instance, Romanian speakers seldom seem to justify the interruption of the discourse, at least according to our corpus: 



The adverb destul ‘enough’, used also as interjection or adjective, has an etymology comparable to its French equivalent assez, both deriving, directly or indirectly, from Latin satis ‘enough, plenty’/satur ‘full (of food), replete’, preceded by a preposition: assez is derived from Vulgar Latin adsatis (see p. 42); destul from de+ satul ( conditionals > performative forms with prego ‘I pray’, supplico ‘I implore’). The regularity and variety of the deferential forms which mitigate a speech act are precisely the elements that promote the routinization and the bleaching of forms on a semantic level.

66

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

Therefore, the performative context is the starting point from which verbs like Lat. quaeso and It. prego begin their development as CMs.

5.4 The reasons for a process: formal and pragmatic developments On a formal level, in both Latin and Italian the diachronic evolution of the verbs examined here can be reconstructed. In Latin, both rogo and quaeso originated from Indo-European roots, but while rogo is morphologically a clear present tense, quaeso is mostly explained as deriving from the IE stem *kṷais- with the addition of a desiderative suffix -s-:5 the original form quaes-s-o (documented in Plautus) becomes Lat. quaeso, as a result of phonetic reduction. The original intervocalic geminate -ss- in quaesso preserved the desiderative form from the rhotacism which acted before the 4th century bc. Therefore, the original present tense form *kṷais-o > quaeso became quaero as a result of rotacism, while the desiderative form quaesso simplified to quaeso, giving rise to the pair quaero ‘I ask, I search’ vs quaeso ‘please’. Already in Plautus quaeso, and its archaic form quaesso, are clearly politeness-related forms which are semantically bleached and routinized. Lat. quaero, on the other hand, is the productive and polysemous verb of the original pair (Molinelli 2008; 2010). As a consequence, the form quaeso proves to be pragmatically specialized and routinized, with a strong connection with the culture of the Latin world, while the linguistically productive Latin, and subsequently Romance, form is quaero, of which, however, no occurrences as CMs have been found. Therefore the two Latin stems quaes- and rog- produce three forms, of which one, quaeso, has only interactional values, the second, quaero, has no pragmatic value, and the third, rogo, has both possibilities6 (Fig. 5.1). In Italian, both chiedo ‘I ask’ and prego ‘I pray’ originated from Latin. The first derives directly from Lat. quaero. The form chiedo is already attested in the 13th

politeness, pragmatic

QUAESO

lexical

ROGO

QUAERO

Figure 5.1 Latin functional developments

5

See different positions in de Vaan (2008), s.v. In Latin, along with quaeso, obescro ‘I implore’ is also strongly conventionalized as performative parenthetical (see Risselada 1993: 248–9). 6

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian

67

century, and it is possible to reconstruct the evolution Lat. quaero> Old It. chero (together with several allotropic variants)7> It. chiedo.8 The form prego, on the other hand, is already attested in Old Italian from the 11th century; it is possible to reconstruct Lat. precor9> Vulg. Lat. *preca¯re, derived from prex ‘prayer’ (IE *prek-)> Old It. prego (together with allotropic variants10)> It. prego.11 In Old Italian the verbal and nominal forms are homonymous, and both uses of prego, as verb (5) and as noun (6), are attested12. (5) faço prego che me paleçi to nome (della Lana, Chiose alla Divina Commedia, Paradiso, 1324–8, c. 15. 78–80) ‘I make a prayer to tell me your name’ (6) La fiore d’ ogne fiore / prego per cortesia, / che più non sia lo suo detto fallato, né disturbato (Federico II di Svevia, Rime, 1250) ‘The flower of every flower / I pray please, / that her words are not contradicted nor disturbed’ As for the pragmatic functions of the two verbal series, in both Latin and Old Italian texts, performative values can be highlighted through reduplication with other directive verbs (7–9).13 (7) rogo quaesoque ut mecum quoque redeat in gratiam (Petronius, Satyricon, 99.2) ‘I beg and pray him to be friends again with me too’ (8) vi prego e cheggio che vi piaccia atarmi (da Montichiello, Rime, 1358) ‘I beg and ask that you like to help me’ (9) Segnori, entendeteme, çascun ‘de prego e rogo: / l’amor de le poncele non este miga çogo (Anon., Proverbia que dicuntur, 12th c.) ‘Sirs, understand me, for this I beg and ask each of you: / the love of mistresses is not a game’ In (9) prego is reduplicated with rogo, one of the rare examples (only five occurrences) in Old Italian texts in the OVI corpus, perhaps influenced by the rhyme çogo. 7 In the OVI corpus, numerous allotropic variants are attested with a non-uniform distribution: ch(i)ero (66%), ch(i)eggio (26%), ch(i)egio (2%), ch(i)eggo (1%), che(i)o (1%), chiedo (2%), chezo (1%), kero (1%). For further studies on the classes of stem allotropy in Old Italian, see Penello et al. (2010: 1462–70). 8 See DELI, s.v., and Nocentini (2010), s.v. 9 The use of the performative verb in Latin is marginal and confined to supplications (see Risselada 1993: 248–9); in our corpus examples are scarce: only 2 in Plautus (Poen. 1225 and Rud. 640) and 4 in Cicero. 10 Different allotropic variants found in the OVI corpus include, in order of frequency, priego, prego, pregho, priegho, pregu, preco, prigo, preghu, precho. 11 On this topic see DELI, s.v., and Nocentini (2010), s.v. 12 Within the OVI corpus the nominal value of ‘pray, plea addressed to one or more people to avoid something’ is well attested in Old Italian, and also in verbal phrases such as fare prego ‘to make a prayer’, muovere prego, lit. ‘to move a prayer’, porgere preghi, lit. ‘to offer prayers’ (Battaglia 1988). 13 This strategy also occurs in texts in other Romance languages, including colonial Spanish (Escobar 2007).

68

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

ROG-

QUAES-

QUAES-S-O

PREC-

QUAES-O

PRECOR

QUAERO QUAESO

It. chiedo Fr. quiers Sp. quiero Port. quero Rom. cer

It. rogare (legal) Port. rogo Sp. ruego

Rom. rog

It. prego

Fr. prie

ma˘ rog

prego

je t’/vous en prie

Figure 5.2 Pragmatic development of the Latin performative verbs quaeso, rogo, precor14

From a more general point of view, the pragmatic development of Latin forms in various Romance languages is shown in Fig. 5.2. Only the Latin performative verb quaeso also functions as a CM in Latin, but this pragmatic value is lost in Romance languages, where the verb has a number of different semantic outcomes. In Romanian, the Latin verb rogo acquires pragmatic value through the formulaic expressions mă rog. In Italian and French, however, another performative verb (precor), barely documented in Latin, acquires the value of a CM (It. prego, Fr. je vous en prie, both meaning ‘please’). The Romance outcomes of the three Latin performative verbs do not exhaust the pragmatic strategies for expressing courtesy. For example, in French two formulas derived from verb phrases, je t’/vous en prie and s’il te/vous plaît, coexist, while other languages including Spanish and Portuguese have gradually developed other forms via nominal periphrasis, such as Spanish por favor. Italian itself has both possibilities, with the terms prego and per favore both meaning ‘please’.

5.5 Analysis parameters in functional development The pragmatic pattern of development which leads from the pragmaticalized Latin CM quaeso to the corresponding Italian prego has been analysed using a number of different parameters: (i) the morphosyntactic contexts in which these verbs most commonly occur: an inversely proportional correlation is found between the morphosyntactic productivity of the verb and the degree of pragmatic and intersubjective meaning it conveys;15 14 15

Ovals mark CMs. Cf. also Traugott and Dasher (2002) and Company Company (2006).

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian

69

(ii) the pragmatic and textual properties of verbs: the degree of freedom of position within an utterance suggests specific pragmatic and textual functions, e.g. the occurrence of the marker in the left (LP) or right periphery (RP) of an utterance or in medial position suggests different scopes, as well as characteristic pragmatic and interactional functions;16 (iii) semantic properties: the possibility that verbs may be ‘modulated’ by adverbs or complements suggests a different degree of pragmaticalization.17 The Latin forms quaeso and rogo were analysed and compared with their Italian cognates prego and chiedo within the three corpora identified above. 5.5.1 Latin: functional developments As far as Latin is concerned, the following morphosyntactic contexts were considered to be pertinent:     

the presence of an overtly expressed direct object; the co-occurrence of the verb with a completive clause (Latin ut + subjunctive mood); the co-occurrence of the verb with a subjunctive; the co-occurrence of the verb with an imperative; the occurrence of the verb in interrogative clauses.18

Table 5.2 contains a summary of the contexts of occurrence (+) of the two verbs in relation to the kind of corpus being examined, along with an example of each verb taken from the corpus. (1Qa)19 te Juppiter quaeso Amphitruoni ut semper you.ACC Jupiter.VOC pray.PRS.1SG Amphitryon.DAT that always iratus sies (Plautus, Amphitryon 3, 2, 52) angry.NOM be.SBJV.PRS.2SG ‘You, Jupiter, I pray, to be always angry with Amphitryon’

16 Consider the recent discussion (Beeching and Detges, forthcoming) of the role of left and right periphery in pragmatico-semantic change. A left-peripheral position would foster linguistic changes in an intersubjective direction (two or more speakers), while a right-peripheral position could be associated with dialogic-textual changes (two or more points of view). 17 Modulation is intended here as the co-occurrence of a verb with a modifier. Consider the case of Italian attention-getters derived from perception verbs, such as guarda un po’, lit. ‘look a bit’, vs politeness markers, such as Italian prego ‘please’, which can no longer be modulated. 18 The contexts where quaeso and rogo are followed by a subjunctive without complementation can be understood as a main verb that supports a completive without complementation, or as parenthetical verbs followed by a subjunctive with hortatory value. They can therefore be defined as ‘bridging contexts’ (Molinelli 2010; Heine 2002). 19 For each example in this series from Latin, we indicate the verb source (Q=quaeso, R=rogo) and the type of corpus (a=Plautus, b=Cicero, c=Petronius).

70

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

TABLE 5.2 Analysis of the Latin relevant contexts (a= Plautus, b= Cicero, c= Petronius, letters; Q= quaeso, R= rogo)

morpho-syntactic contexts

pragmatic-textual properties

object completive (UT) subjunctive imperative interrogative sentences left periphery medial position right periphery

semantic properties modulation

quaeso ‘I ask, please’

rogo ‘I ask’

(a)

(b)

(c)

(a)

(b)

(c)

+, 1Qa +, 2Qa

+, 2Qb

+, 2Qc

+, 1Ra +, 2Ra

+, 1Rb +, 2Rb

+, 1Rc +, 2Rc

+, 3Qa +, 4Qa +, 5Qa

+, 3Qb +, 4Qb +, 4Qc +, 5Qb

+, 3Rc +, 4Rc

+, 6Qa

+, 5Qb

+, 3Rc

+, 7Qa

+, 4Qb

+, 7Ra

+, 2Rb

+, 8Qa

+, 8Qb

+, 8Ra

+, 8Rb

+, 9Qa

+, 2Qc

quod that.ACC

+, 4Rc

+, 9Rc, +, 1Rb, 2Rb, 9Rb 2Qc

te you.ACC

(1Ra)

Dic mihi hoc tell.IMP.PRS.2SG I.DAT this.ACC rogo (Plautus, Menaechmi, 914) ask.PRS.1SG ‘Tell me this that I ask you’

(1Rb)

acrius te rogo ut plane with.greater.earnestness you.ACC ask.PRS.1SG to literally nos advoles (Cicero, Atticus II, 24) we.ACC fly.SBJV.PRS.2SG ‘I now ask you with greater easterness to literally fly to us’

(1Rc)

Si vis sanus esse if want.PRS.2SG healthy.NOM be.INF.PRS roga (Petronius, Satyricon 129) pray.IMP.PRS.2SG ‘If you want to be healthy, pray Giton’

Gitonem Giton.ACC

ad to

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian

71

(2Qa) Blepharo quaeso ut aduocatus mihi Blepharo.VOC pray.PRS.1SG that advocate.NOM I.DAT adsis neue abeas (Plautus, Amphitryon 1037) stay.SBJV.PRS.2SG and-not go.away.SBJV.PRS.2SG ‘Blepharus, I pray that you’ll stay as my advocate, and not go away’ (2Qb) quaeso ut eum diem pray.PRS.1SG that this.ACC day.ACC mandetis (Cicero, Pro Quinctio 4, 24) consign.SBJV.PRS.2PL ‘I beg you to remember the day’

memoriae memory.DAT

(2Qc) rogo quaesoque ut mecum quoque ask.PRS.1SG pray.PRS.1SG-and that I.ABL-with also redeat in gratiam (Petronius, Satyricon 99, 2) come.back.SBJV.PRS.3SG in friendship.ACC ‘I ask and pray him to be friends again with me too’ (2Ra)

quia rogo palla ut referatur because ask.PRS.1SG mantle.NOM that return.SBJV.PRS.PASS.3SG ad uxorem meam (Plautus, Menaechmi 906) to wife.ACC my.ACC ‘because I ask for the mantle, that it may be returned again to my wife’

(2Rb) acrius te rogo ut plane ad more.earnestness you.ACC ask.PRS.1SG to literally to advoles (Cicero, Atticus II, 24) fly.SBJV.PRS.2SG ‘I now ask you with greater earnestness to literally fly to us’

nos we.ACC

(3Qa) Bene valete et vivite bene quaeso inter good be.well.IMP.PRS.2PL and live.IMP.PRS.2PL good pray.PRS.1SG between vos dicatis mi med absenti you.ACC speak.SBJV.PRS.2PL I.DAT I.ABL be.absent.PTCP.PRS.ABL.SG tamen (Plautus, Miles Gloriosus 1340–41) even.though ‘Good luck and live happily, please, speak well of me, even though I am no longer there’ (3Qb) quaeso videas ut satis honestum nobis pray.1SG consider.SBJV.PRS.2SG that enough proper we.DAT sit eas Romae esse (Cicero, Atticus VII, 14) be.SBJV.PRS.3SG they.F.ACC Rome.GEN be.INF.PRS ‘pray consider that they can stay at Rome with propriety’

72

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

(3Ra)

Rogo venias (Vindolanda Tablets 312) ask.PRS.1SG come.SBJV.PRS.2SG ‘I ask you to come/ please, come . . .’

(4Qa) Sed pater, uide ne tibi hodie uerba but father.VOC see.IMP.PRS.2SG that.not you.DAT today words.ACC det quaeso caue (Plautus, Asinaria 744) give.SBJV.PRS.3SG pray.PRS.1SG beware.IMP.PRS.2SG ‘But, father, do take care that he does not impose on you this day; I pray you, do beware’ (4Qb) tu quaeso you.NOM pray.PRS.1SG ‘Please, think!’

cogita (Cicero, Atticus 9, 17, 2) think.IMP.PRS.2SG

(4Qc) hac prece quaeso, exonera mentem culpae this.ABL prayer.ABL pray.PRS.1SG take.IMP.PRS.2SG mind.ACC load.GEN que ignosce minori (Petronius, Satyricon 133, 3) and forgive.IMP.PRS.2SG light.offence.DAT ‘This is my prayer: take the load from my mind, forgive a light offence’ (4Rc)

ita rogo quam primum aliquit (denariorum) so ask.PRS.1SG as-soon-as-possible some money.GEN.PL mitte (Vindolanda Tablets, II, 343, 14–15) send.IMP.PRS.2SG ‘so please send me some money as soon as possible’

mi I.DAT

(5Qa) Quapropter, quaeso? (Plautus, Asinaria 630) why pray.PRS.1SG ‘Why, please?’ (5Qb) quaeso, quid nobis futurum est? (Cicero, Atticus VI, 9) pray.PRS.1SG what we.DAT be.PTCP.FUT.N.SG be.PRS.3SG ‘pray, what is to become of us?’ (6Qa) Quaeso quid rogas? (Plautus, Mercator 214) pray.PRS.1SG what ask.PRS.2SG ‘Please, what are you asking?’ (7Qa) da, quaeso, ac ne formida (Plautus, Asinaria 462) give.IMP.PRS.2SG pray.PRS.1SG and do not be.afraid.IMP.PRS.2SG ‘do give it, please, and don’t be afraid’

73

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (7Ra)

At ego patriam te rogo quae sit but I.NOM country.ACC you.ACC ask.PRS.1SG what be.SBJV.PRS.3SG tua (Plautus, Persa 635) your ‘But I ask you, what is your country?’

(8Qa) Hoc quod te rogo this.ACC that.ACC you.ACC ask.PRS.1SG quaeso (Plautus, Mercator 214) pray.PRS.1SG ‘Do answer what I’m asking you, please’

responde answer.IMP.PRS.2SG

(8Qb) Qui de re publica rumores scribe, what about politics.ABL report.NOM.PL write.IMP.PRS.2SG quaeso (Cicero, Atticus V, 3) pray.PRS.1SG ‘Write (me) what reports there are about politics, I pray you’ (8Ra)

Aliud te another.thing.ACC you.ACC ‘I ask you something else’

rogo (Plautus, Mostellaria 1119) ask.PRS.1SG

(8Rb) quod ut facias te vehementer etiam atque etiam this that do.SBJV.PRS.2SG you.ACC earnestly repeatedly rogo. (Cicero, Atticus XVI, 16f.) ask.PRS.1SG ‘I easnestly and repeatedly ask you to do so’ (9Qa) sed quaeso hercle, agedum aspice but pray.PRS.1SG by.Hercules come.then look.IMP.PRS.2SG me. (Plautus, Captivi 570) I.ACC ‘but please, by Hercules, come then, look at me’

ad at

(9Rb) itaque te vehementer etiam atque etiam therefore you.ACC earnestly repeatedly rogo (Cicero, Atticus XII, 35) ask.PRS.1SG ‘therefore I ask you earnestly and repeatedly’ (9Rc)

Valde te rogo ut secundom pedes statuae earnestly you.ACC ask.PRS.1SG that after feet.ACC statue.GEN meae catellam pingas (Petronius, Satyricon 71, 5) my.GEN my.little.dog.ACC carve.SBJV.PRS.2SG ‘I beg you earnestly to put at the feet of my statue my little dog’

74

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 100% 80% 60% 40%

subjunctive

imperative

PL

CIC

PETR

questions

completive (UT)

0%

object

20%

Figure 5.3 quaeso: Morphosyntactic contexts 100% 80% 60% 40%

subjunctive

imperative

PL

CIC

PETR

questions

completive (UT)

0%

object

20%

Figure 5.4 rogo: Morphosyntactic contexts

As for quantitative occurrences in relation to the patterns identified, it is remarkable that quaeso is more common in Plautus and Cicero (152 and 62 occurrences, respectively), whereas rogo is equally recurrent in all three authors (35, 32, and 23 occurrences). These data confirm the postulated diachronic trend, as quaeso is more common in classical Latin, whereas rogo becomes the preferred choice only later. The quantitative comparison of the contexts of occurrence of the two verbs (Figs 5.3 and 5.4) highlights a complementary distribution of the two verbs in the three authors. quaeso is certainly more syntactically independent, since it appears almost exclusively as a form related to politeness employed as a CM. From a diachronic perspective, a decrease in its use is clear, as the form is totally absent in randomly sampled late texts. Conversely, rogo shows higher morphosyntactic productivity in relation to the number of possible combinations with nominal and phrasal elements.

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian

75

100% 80% 60% 40%

RP

medial

0%

LP

20%

PL

CIC

PETR

Figure 5.5 quaeso: Pragmatic-textual properties

80% 60% 40%

RP

medial

0%

LP

20%

PL

CIC

PETR

Figure 5.6 rogo: Pragmatic-textual properties

Conversely, regarding pragmatic and textual properties (Figs 5.5 and 5.6), rogo is found in the right periphery or in medial position in most cases in both Plautus and Cicero; this verb is never found in the right periphery in Petronius, though. quaeso is more common in medial position, where it co-occurs with imperatives or functions as a parenthetical. Verbs in the left periphery tend to have an intersubjective value: the speaker makes a request, she attenuates an order, she takes her turn; broadly speaking, she negotiates the relationship with her interlocutor. When verbs are found in the right periphery of a speech act or of a turn, they tend to emphasize the speaker’s point of view, the subjectivity of the enunciation. Lastly, the analysis of the semantic properties of the verbs (see Figs 5.7 and 5.8) highlights the fact that quaeso acts only as a parenthetical marker in Cicero and, as such,

76

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

15%

10%

5%

0% PL

CIC

PETR

Figure 5.7 quaeso: Modulation

60%

40%

20%

0% PL

CIC

PETR

Figure 5.8 rogo: Modulation

never occurs with adverbs. Conversely, in Plautus the verb co-occurs with other intensifying elements in 14% of occurrences. The author tends to creatively modulate these contexts by using clustering of markers, as seen in Dic mihi, obsecro hercle, verum serio, hoc quod te rogo (Plautus, Ps. 340) ‘Answer my question, for Heaven’s sake’. The quantitative analysis leads to some observations on the three authors’ characteristic contexts of use of the markers. Rogo is usually used with an overtly expressed object and occurs in the right periphery in Plautus (e.g. Quid hoc quod te rogo? Plautus, Trin. 930, ‘What is this that you ask?’). Conversely, the verb frequently co-occurs with completives or direct objects in Cicero. Meanwhile, ten out of twenty-three occurrences (44%) confirms a recurrent pattern of use in Petronius, where rogo appears in the left periphery before direct speech, usually followed by a vocative or an interrogative clause (e.g. ‘rogo’ inquam ‘mater numquid scis ubi ego habitem?’ Petronius, Satyricon 7.1: ‘ “I ask,” I say, “mother, do you know where I live?” ’).

77

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian 5.5.2 Italian: functional developments

As for Italian, the following morphosyntactic contexts were considered to be pertinent:     

the presence of an overtly expressed direct object; the co-occurrence of the verb with explicit or implicit completive clauses; the co-occurrence of the verb with an imperative; the occurrence of the verb in interrogative clauses; for contemporary Italian, whether the form can constitute an independent turn.

Table 5.3 summarizes the contexts of occurrence of the two verbs (+) in the corpora being examined and gives an example of each verb taken from the corpus. TABLE 5.3 Analysis of the Italian relevant contexts (a= Boccaccio, b= Goldoni, c- C-Oral-ROM; P= prego, C= chiedo) prego ‘I pray, please’

chiedo ‘I ask’20

(a)

(b)

(c)

(a)

(b)

(c)

object completive explicit implicit completive imperative questions turn

+, 1Pa +, 2Pa

+, 1Pb +, 2Pb

+, 1Pc

(+), 1Ca (+), 2Ca

(+), 1Cb (+), 2Cb

+, 1Cc

+, 1Pb

+, 1Pc

+, 4Pb

+, 4Pc

pragmatictextual properties

PS intermediate PD

+, 7Pa +, 8Pa +, 9Pa

+, 4Pb +, 8Pb +, 9Pb

semantic properties

co-occurrence with modulation

+, 10Pa

+, 10Pb

morphosyntactic contexts

+, 4Pa

+, 1Cc (+), 4Cb

6Pc +, 7Pc +, 1Pc +, 9Pc

(+), 2Ca

(+), 1Cb (+), 9Cb +, 2Cb

+, 5Cc +, 5Cc +, 8Cc +, 10Cc

The occurrences of chiedo in Decameron are few (just 3 occurrences in the forms cheggio and chero); equally limited are the occurrences of chiedo in Goldoni (just 9). In Table 5.3, these occurrences are indicated in brackets (+), as they may not be fully representative within speakers’ repertoire. Goldoni’s comedies use the alternative, and more frequent, form domando ‘I ask’, which is used above all in idiomatic expressions such as domando perdon ‘I apologize’, ghe domando do mila scuse lit. ‘I ask two thousand pardons’. 20

78

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

(1Pa)21 Io priego Idio che vi dea il buon anno (Boccaccio, Decameron III, 8) ‘I pray the Lord that he gives you a good year’ (1Pb) Pregovi per tutte le sacre leggi d’amicizia e d’ amore di non tradirmi (Goldoni, Il servitore di due padroni, I, 20) ‘I pray you for all sacred laws of friendship and love not to betray me’ (1Pc) ecco/ prego Gianluca di (/) di approfondire subito (C-Oral-ROM, ipubmn01) ‘Now, I pray Gianluca to delve into the topic now’ (1Ca) ma di spezial grazia vi cheggio un dono (Boccaccio, Decameron, I) ‘but of your especial grace I crave a favour’ (1Cb) Vi chiedo una grazia soltanto (Goldoni, Il burbero benefico, III, 7) ‘I ask you just one favour’ (1Cc) ecco/ innanzi tutto/ chiedo a Gianluca/ ecco/ di chiarire (C-Oral-ROM, ipubmn01) ‘now, to begin with, I ask Gianluca, to explain’ (2Pa) Io vi priego che voi il pigliate (Boccaccio, Decameron II, 1) ‘I pray you to arrest him’ (2Pb) Prego el Cielo che me daga pazienza (Goldoni, Sior Todero Brontolon, I, 4) ‘I pray to the Lord that he give me patience’ (2Ca) mercé ti chero, dolce mio Signore, che vadi a lui (Boccaccio, Decameron X, 7) ‘I beg you for a grace, my sweet Lord, that you go to him’ (2Cb) ma solamente vi chiedo, che [ . . . ] lasciate fare a me a procurare il rimedio (Goldoni, Le femmine puntigliose, III, 1) ‘but I only ask that you let me find a remedy’ (4Pa) Deh, io ve ne priego, ditemi quale è dessa (Boccaccio, Decameron I, 6) ‘I pray you, tell me what that is’ (4Pb) Vi prego, datemi voi il denaro per un abito (Goldoni, La famiglia dell’antiquario, I, 5) ‘Pray, give me some money to for a dress’ (4Pc) prego prego/ finisca pure (C-Oral-ROM, imedsp01) ‘Please, please, continue’

21 For each example in this series from Italian, we indicate the verb source (P=prego, C=chiedo) and the type of corpus (a=Boccaccio, b=Goldoni, c=C-Oral-ROM).

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian

79

(4Cb) Vi chiedo una grazia soltanto: moderate il vostro odio contro di me (Goldoni, Il burbero benefico, III, 7) ‘I ask only one favour of you: moderate your anger against me’ (5Cc) chiedo a chi + chi è che vuole iniziare? (C-Oral-ROM, inatps03) ‘I ask, who wants to take their turn?’ (6Pc) A: Sinistra Democratica video connection B: prego? (C-Oral-ROM, imedts03) ‘A: Democratic Left party video connection’ B: ‘I beg your pardon?’ (7Pa) Priego io Idio che a così fatti termini né voi né me rechi a questi tempi! (Boccaccio, Decameron X, 9) ‘I pray God that He bring neither you nor me to such a strait yet awhile’ (7Pc) vabbé // l’ intervista è finita / ti ringrazio e/ ciao prego // ciao (C-Oral-ROM, ifamdl06) ‘Well, the interview is over. Thank you and goodbye. You’re welcome. Goodbye.’ (8Pa) E per ciò, prima che io a Dio vi comandi, vi priego per quello amore e per quella amistà la quale è tra noi, che di me vi ricordi (Boccaccio, Decameron X, 9) ‘Hence, before I recommend you to God, I beg you, in the name of love and friendship between us, that you remember me’ (8Pb) Caro sior Sgualdo, ve prego no disè gnente a nessun (Goldoni, La casa nova, I, 1) ‘Dear Mr Sgualdo, I beg you not to say anything to anyone’ (8Cc) no / scusa // chiedo + ma / siccome / queste due vertenze ‘un sono (C-Oral-ROM, inatbu02) ‘No, I am sorry, I ask, but since these two lawsuits are not the ones we examined today’ (9Pa) Tempo hai di lasciarmi: lasciami, io te ne priego (Boccaccio, Decameron, III, 7) ‘You have time to leave me, leave me, I beg you’ (9Pb) Non glielo dite, vi prego (Goldoni, I puntigli domestici, II,17) ‘Do not tell him, I beg you’ (9Pc) ora io lo firmo / e ve lo rimando // prego / arrivederci (C-Oral-ROM, ifamcv28) ‘I am going to sign it and to forward it to you. You’re welcome. Goodbye’

80

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

(9Cb) Fatemi questo piacere, ve lo chiedo in grazia (Goldoni, Il burbero benefico, I, 16) ‘Do me this favour, I beg you please’ (10Pa) Messere, anzi ve ne priego io molto, e sarammi carissimo. (Boccaccio, Decameron VI, 1) ‘Sir, I rather beg you most earnestly, and I shall deem it the greatest of favours’ (10Pb) ma vi prego bene, se mi capitassero persone di rango, cedermi quest’appartamento (Goldoni, La locandiera, I, 20) ‘I kindly beg you to give me this apartment, if I ever were to meet people of social standing’ (10Cc) ma chiedo solo/ perché non sono ritornate agli autori (C-Oral-ROM, imedts01) ‘I only ask, why were they not returned to the authors?’ Quantitative analysis highlights that the more common verb in Italian is prego ‘I pray’, whereas chiedo ‘I ask’ (also considering the diatopically marked variant domando in Goldoni) occurs frequently only in contemporary Italian. As for the morphosyntactic contexts of occurrence (Figs 5.9 and 5.10), the analysis of verb frequency in the three historical periods considered highlights a progressive decline in the co-occurrence of prego with a direct object and with explicit completive clauses. Its co-occurrence with implicit completives increases in Goldoni (37% of occurrences) but dramatically decreases in contemporary Italian (4%). In this regard, the data on the co-occurrence of the two verbs with the imperative tense are interesting, since an increase in the co-occurrence of prego or

100% 80% 60% 40%

BOC

GOL

turn

questions

imperative

implicit compl.

explicit compl.

0%

object

20%

COral

Figure 5.9 prego: Morphosyntactic contexts

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian

81

100% 80% 60% 40%

BOC

GOL

turn

questions

imperative

implicit compl.

explicit compl.

0%

object

20%

COral

Figure 5.10 chiedo: Morphosyntactic contexts

chiedo with an imperative (37% and 33%, respectively) corresponds to a decrease of their co-occurrence with explicit completive clauses. Moreover, unlike in Latin,22 prego does not occur in interrogative clauses, whereas the semantics of chiedo seems to privilege the presence of the verb in this structure (e.g. 5Cc). Furthermore, the occurrences of prego in contemporary Italian are significant (57%) in contexts where it forms a turn in isolation (e.g. 6Pc), since they indicate an advanced stage of routinization of the structure, and hence of the process of pragmaticalization as a CM. As for pragmatic and textual properties (Figs 5.11 and 5.12), a progressive decrease in the occurrence of prego and chiedo in the left periphery can be observed in favour of more marked occurrences in medial position, where the verbs are used as parentheticals, and in the right periphery. Furthermore, in contemporary Italian the two verbs show characteristic distributions in utterances: prego23 tends to occur on a uniform basis in more marked contexts, while chiedo more frequently occurs in more prototypical positions (i.e. the left periphery or medial position). Still, this different distribution of prego suggests that the verb attains a higher degree of pragmaticalization. A side note in reference to the interaction between characteristic morphosyntactic contexts and position in the utterance concerns the type of clause preceding or following the verb and the position of the verb itself in the utterance: prego tends to occur in the left periphery, when it is followed by an explicit completive clause (10), 22

The same distribution also characterizes languages other than Latin, e.g. English, for which the diachronic development of pray is analysed in Akimoto (2000) and Traugott and Dasher (2002). 23 Uses of prego as a whole turn have been considered instances of independent position.

82

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 80% 60% 40%

BOC

GOL

RP

medial

0%

LP

20%

COral

Figure 5.11 prego: Pragmatic-textual properties 80% 60% 40%

RP

BOC

medial

0%

LP

20%

GOL

COral

Figure 5.12 chiedo: Pragmatic-textual properties

whereas it is placed more frequently in the right periphery when it is preceded by an imperative (11). The verb is not used as a mere performative, especially in the right periphery, but it tends to be parenthetical and to be used pragmatically as an independent linguistic act which hedges the illocutive force of the directive speech act containing the imperative.24 (10) Deh! Io ti priego, signor, che tu vogli; (Boccaccio, Decameron VI, Conclusioni) ‘I pray you, my Lord, that you want (it)’ (11)

24

prendila adunque, s’ella t’agrada, io te ne priego (Boccaccio, Decameron X, 3) ‘take it, then, if you like it, I pray you’

In these contexts the pragmatic function of the verb is well connected to its social deictic value, as it invites the inference that the speaker is paying attention to the interlocutor’s face (intersubjective use) through the expression of the speaker’s own deference.

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian

83

15%

10%

5%

0% BOC

GOL

COral

Figure 5.13 prego: Modulation

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BOC

GOL

COral

Figure 5.14 chiedo: Modulation

With regard to the semantic properties of the two verbs (Figs 5.13 and 5.14), it can be observed that modulation for prego is attained mainly through adverbs only until Goldoni’s time, whereas the situation of chiedo in Goldoni and in contemporary Italian simultaneously reflects the development of prego in Boccaccio and in Goldoni. Data analysis suggests that, of the two forms, prego is more pragmaticalized as a CM, since it can represent an independent turn (e.g. 6Pc), is syntactically more and more integrated into the utterance, and is no longer compatible with the modulation. When it is placed in the left periphery, it can act as a strategy of turn management or turn-taking (e.g. 4Pc) or of turn-yielding (e.g. 12), especially in asymmetric and formal communicative situations. (12)

partite dalla [/] dal tre che è stato assegnato a Giampiero Scafoglio // prego // (C-Oral-ROM, imedts02) ‘Start from number three that was given to Giampiero Scafoglio, over to you’

In both positions, the verb under examination performs intersubjective and social functions, which are further emphasized in contexts where prego, already completely pragramaticalized, is used as an independent turn (e.g. the minimal pair Grazie. Prego! ‘Thank you! You are welcome!’).

84

Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

5.6 Conclusions Considering two pairs of verbs meaning ‘ask/please’, in both Latin and Italian a process of pragmaticalization has developed, but it is more advanced for one of the two pairs of verbs (Lat. quaeso and It. prego). If one compares their behaviour in relation to traditional grammaticalization parameters (Lehmann 1995; Hopper 1991) it is possible to observe that: 









There is no phonetic erosion or reduction of the prosodic prominence of the verbs; on the contrary, they tend to become phonetically more prominent because of the salient intersubjective value associated with requests (Lat. 5Qa or It. 6Pc). The verbs are subject to decategorization and develop pragmatic functions in the 1st person present indicative, which at a formal level is connected with performative and deictic values. Their semantic density increases as the pragmatic functions acquired are added to the original semantic meaning (cf. Dostie 2004: 39 on the pragmaticalization of verbs). In Latin, just one of the two verbal roots (quaes-, rog-) gives rise to two forms, one of which (quaeso) is specialized as a CM; the other verb (rogo) develops pragmatic values without being fully pragmaticalized. Conversely, in Italian, if prego is pragmatically more advanced compared to chiedo, the pragmaticalization is globally less advanced compared to Latin. Prego is very often used as a CM (86% of occurrences) but also maintains uses compatible with the original semantics of the verb. At the level of the linguistic system, the fact that a verb develops pragmatic functions fosters a stratification of different forms with the same function, as the creation of a new element does not remove pre-existing elements but generates a re-adjustment of the system at the sociolinguistic level: both pairs of verbs (Lat. quaeso, rogo and It. prego, chiedo) can be used in similar contexts, but one tends to occur more often that the other and to specialize in specific functions.

These peculiarities in the diachronic developments of the two verbs thus bring to mind recurring, productive, and iterative processes of pragmaticalization, of real pragmatic cycles:25 the Latin CM quaeso gradually decreased in frequency of use and was progressively replaced by rogo. On the other hand, the lexical use of the root quaes-, becoming quaero, increases in frequency and gives rise to the Italian chiedo. The pragmatic value of rogo in Italian is not maintained, but its function is fulfilled by the descendant of another performative verb, that was peripheral in the Latin system (precor). 25

Cf. Jespersen’s (1917) studies on cycles of negation in relation to syntax.

Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian

85

Such a functional process has specific correlates at the formal level, as in both languages the process of pragmaticalization initially is fostered by the use of verbs as performatives but subsequently is reinforced by parenthetical use expressing negotiation by the speaker of the interlocutor’s needs (Molinelli 2010). The development of the pragmatic functions of quaeso and prego is similar to the process which characterizes the development of many epistemic parenthetical verbs (such as It. credo ‘I believe’, penso ‘I think’, immagino ‘I guess’). Thompson and Mulac (1991) connect the deletion of the explicit marker of completive clauses in English to the development of parenthetical verbs.26 At a diachronic level the same scheme seems to develop for the Italian CM prego as well: (io) prego che ‘I pray that’ > (io) prego (di) ‘I pray to’ > prego + imperative > prego. The deletion of the direct object (generally a pronoun) is possible as it corresponds to the recipient and becomes redundant with the imperative. But from our point of view, the increase of frequency of the verb with a parenthetical function in the right periphery or medial position usually occurs in injunctive contexts (in Latin with completives not introduced by ut, in Italian with the imperative) that represent important critical contexts for the development of the CM.27 In Italian, the verb in the left periphery can still be understood as performative, while its occurrence in the right periphery or in medial position most frequently clusters with a politeness-motivated parenthetical function; in this case the verb is understood as a formula that hedges the injunctive value of the imperative and expresses deference toward the interlocutor, thus assuming intersubjective values. In other words, in such contexts the degree of illocutive force of the directive act decreases, the nonverbal elements become relevant, and the act can be separated into two different pragmatic nuclei: the first includes the verb, which can no longer be understood as performative, but instead functions as a parenthetical with a mitigating function; the second includes the information structure. The ‘full’ Latin and Italian verbs quaeso and prego have therefore become CMs thanks to a virtuous syntactic and pragmatic circle which is independent of the syntactic structure characteristic of each language. The sentence following the verb acquires syntactic independence and greater importance in terms of information structure as a result of the decrease in the morphosyntactic connection with the information content of the first part that, in turn, specializes in fulfilling only a pragmatic role of an interpersonal kind.

26 Thompson and Mulac (1991) use examples of the English verb think to support this hypothesis. The authors identify a pattern of evolution that include I think that we are definitely moving towards being more technological > I think exercise is really beneficial to anybody > It’s just your point of view, you know, what you like to do in your spare time, I think. 27 Cf. Diewald (2002) or ‘bridging context’ in Heine (2002).

6 Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian M IC HA E L A L IVE S C U

6.1 Introduction Three Romanian verbs inherited from Latin share the same semantics, namely a cere (< Lat. quaero) ‘to ask (somebody) (for) something, to demand, to order’, a ruga (< Lat. rogo) ‘to ask (for) something, to ask somebody to + verb’, and a cerși (< probably derived from Lat. quaero/quaeso) ‘to beg (for), to ask (for)’ (see Ernout and Meillet 1979 s.v.). A cerși underwent a process of specialization, this resulting in a pragmatic form used in a specific type of request. The verb a cere semantically points to a firm, clearcut request, as exemplified in (1) below: (1)

I-a cerut să-i aducă apă ‘She ordered him to bring her some water (no doubt she’ll get the water)’

Interestingly, however, only the verb a ruga shows a clear process of pragmaticalization. This chapter concentrates on this verb, describing and discussing the pragmatic functions it developed in Romanian. A ruga has a semantic nuance which implies a certain emotional participation, possibly associated with uncertainty regarding the intended result. Some typical contexts of use of this verb are illustrated in (2), where the speaker appeals to the interlocutor’s cooperation, clearly showing that she depends on him to get the water she needs: (2)

L-a rugat să-i aducă apă ‘She asked him to bring her some water’

A ruga, a double transitive verb, has also acquired a reflexive form in Romanian, a se ruga, presumably to be interpreted as a calque of the Slavic form (inf) moliti se,

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

87

that semantically corresponds to a ruga. It is by no means an inherited Latin verb that generates a reflexive form in Modern Romanian, giving rise in many instances to significant semantic differences between the active and the reflexive forms (cf. oblitare > (a) uita ‘to forget’ și (a) se uita ‘to look at’). From the reflexive counterpart a se ruga, a specific meaning has emerged, namely ‘to address, to ask God/Divinity for something, e.g. for a favour’. This meaning may have been influenced by the parallel existence of its derivative noun rogatio, -onis > rugăciune ‘prayer’. Note that, interestingly, in Romanian there is a difference between rugăciune ‘prayer’ and și rugăminte ‘demand’. The two uses of the verb a se ruga, associated with two different meanings, respectively (‘to address, to ask God/Divinity for something’ and ‘to ask (for)’) pair up with different cases of the determinants and the associated prepositional phrases. This constructional alternance is shown in (3) and (4) below: (3)

a se ruga, meaning (1): ‘to address, to ask God/Divinity for something’ synthetical – analytical Dative: lui Dumnezeu, Lui pentru, de+ noun /ca sa˘+ clause ‘to God, to Him’ ‘for, to+verb / that he should’

analytical Dative: la Dumnezeu, la El, la tot‚i sfint‚ii ‘of God, of Him, of All Saints’ (4)

a se ruga, meaning (2): ‘to ask (for)’ þ analytical Accusative: a se ruga de cineva pentru/ca să ‘to ask somebody for something/to þ clause’

Another form of the verb is mă rog, the present indicative, 1st person singular inflected form of the verb a se ruga. When used with the meaning illustrated in (3) above, ‘to address, to ask God/Divinity for something’, this verb can also be used in absolute constructions, as exemplified in the following example (5): (5)

Eu mă rog în fiecare seară ‘I pray every night’

Mă rog appears in many different contexts, as it can be associated with nominal, pronominal, or adverbial determinants. Interestingly, however, it most often occurs alone and parenthetically, usually in the left periphery, developing in similar contexts new pragmatic, hearer-oriented, and politeness-motivated functions. This is precisely the case in example (6) below, for instance, where mă rog clearly functions as a courtesy marker introducing a request:

88 (6)

Michaela Livescu ‘Mă rog, dacă nu vă supăraţi, aveţi apă?’ ‘Da.’ ‘E rece?’ (Caragiale, Momente și schiţe, 160) ‘“Please/Pardon me, if you don’t mind, do you have some water?” “Yes.” “Is it cold?”’

This pragmatic change, resulting in the development of politeness motivated values, is of particular interest to us here, since when mă rog is syntactically isolated, it appears to have completely lost its original meaning, having thereby accomplished a clear process of semantic bleaching, and simultaneously having undergone an increase in pragmatic strengthening and (inter-)subjectification. Crucially in the present context, the characteristics of the functional development briefly described so far all point to a clear case of pragmaticalization, mă rog being the frozen and opaque form derived from a lexical verb with which it is no longer connected by speakers. Contextually, once it had become syntactically fixed and perceived as a semantically separate item, mă rog started to develop new pragmatic functions, progressively acquiring the status of a pragmatic marker (see Chapter 5 for similar developments in Italian and Latin). Note, however, that this peculiar case of pragmatic change has not so far been discussed with regard to Romanian. As exceptions, one can quote the cursory remarks found in Avram’s grammar (1997: 407), where mă rog is regarded as an incidental construction—a statement—and in GALR II (2005: 742), where this marker is described in terms of a pragmatic connector for causative or concessive statements. Tiktin (T/M 3, s.v. a ruga) even describes this form as a verbal tic (see also Dascălu-Jinga 2011). Note, however, that a detailed account of the pragmatic development of mă rog and a comprehensive description of its uses is still lacking. The primary objective of this chapter is therefore to provide such a detailed analysis. This chapter is organized as follows: in section 6.2 I trace the pragmaticalization path undergone by mă rog, illustrating in detail its functional developments by taking into account the specific values it came to acquire in different communicative contexts. Each cluster of functions is spelled out in different subsections: section 6.2.1 is devoted to its original use as a performative verb, while section 6.2.2 considers its role as courtesy marker in polite requests. Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 are devoted to cases in which mă rog functions as a circumstantial and modalizing marker to negotiate contents exchanged by speakers and to manage conflicting perspectives. Section 6.2.5 considers another important value developed by this verb, that of attention-getter, which may be used by speakers to get the interlocutor’s attention during an important segment of the ongoing discourse. Section 6.3 provides some concluding remarks. Section 6.4 consists of an appendix, giving examples and sources.

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

89

6.2 Development and uses of mă rog as pragmatic marker in Romanian In this section I take into account different pragmatic functions gradually developed by mă rog in Romanian. I have considered two different aspects of this pragmaticalization process: (i) the semantic shift accompanying an increase in pragmatic strength, and (ii) the specific morphosyntactic contexts within which the actual change took place (presence of another verb modulated by mă rog, and position within the sentence—initial vs final or incidental).1 Each use is illustrated by some examples taken from Romanian literature and drawn from three main types of source: (i) the first attempts at writing original novels in 19th century; (ii) fictions written in the course of the 20th century, particularly socalled ‘popular fiction’, i.e. detective/crime novels that range from the late 1900s to contemporary writers; and (iii) different media, in particular, newspapers. 6.2.1 Original performative meaning Mă rog is found as the inflected form of the verb a ruga, carrying its original performative meaning and expressing the person who is ‘prayed’ as object, as in examples (7) and (8), where mă rog is followed by the pronoun ţie ‘you’.2 In this case, the verb introduces a direct question or a wish and displays the closest semantic and formal desacralized approximation of that of ‘imploring God’. In such contexts the verb typically occurs in the constructions: mă rog + pronoun ţie ‘you’/vouă ‘thou’ (7) and (8), or mă rog + noun (9). (7)

Mă rog ţie, Doamne . . . ‘I beg of you,/I implore you, my God . . .’

(8)

(Și) mă rog ţie, de ce n-ai făcut ce ţi-am spus? ‘(And) I beg you, why have you not done what I told you?’

(9)

Ce face? Te dau de rușine? Mă rog, verișoară, scăpat-am vreo prostie de când am venit? Așa-i că nu? (Alecsandri, Opere, 168) ‘What now? Do I bring shame on you? I beg of you, my cousin, have I said anything foolish? I haven’t, have I?’

The verb, in its performative use, can also be modulated by manner adverbs. When introducing a direct question, mă rog can be used to soften it, especially when the question at issue is felt as emotionally loaded, impolite, or intrusive. In these contexts, 1 Cf. also Chapter 5 in this volume on similar parameters in relation to the pragmatic developments of Latin quaeso and Italian prego. 2 A number of examples, and corresponding contexts of use, which it was not possible to comment upon within the present chapter, are given in the Appendix, to give the reader a clearer picture of the multifarious pragmatic values that mă rog has in Romanian.

90

Michaela Livescu

mă rog is modulated by adverbs expressing humbleness, as e.g. frumos (‘beautifully, nicely’ (10). This use might be due to the influence of German, a language frequently spoken in Transylvania (cf. the courtesy forms bitte schön, danke schön). (10)

(Dar), mă rog frumos, de ce nu poţi veni, ce ţi-am făcut? ‘(And), I kindly beg of you, why can’t you come, what have I done to you?’

In such constructions, the speaker addresses the interlocutor asking for more information, usually implying another verbum dicendi which is not overtly expressed (as if it were ‘I beg of you . . . to tell me/to explain to me/to say to me’). The motivation behind the employment of mă rog may also rest on the fact that the speaker does not agree with the interlocutor, therefore asking to expand his argument in order to negotiate their perspective and find common ground. 6.2.2 Mă rog as a courtesy marker Mă rog is frequently used in Romanian as a courtesy marker. When employed as such, the verb tends to occur in first position, thus introducing a subsequent request expressed by a verb in the imperative mood. In similar contexts mă rog does not primarily convey its performative meaning, functioning instead as a mitigating form that modulates the illocutionary force of the following imperative. Example (11) illustrates this specific use: mă rog is followed by an imperative expressing the propositional content of the request. In such cases the marker is often used to express the intention not to threaten the interlocutor’s face, i.e. to show deference and respect in relation to a request (12). (11)

Mă rog, nu mă omorî! Iaca spun tot . . . (Gane, Privighetoarea Socolei, 163) ‘I beg of you, don’t kill me! I’ll tell you everything . . .’

(12)

Vină, mă rog, mai degrabă adăogă călăreţul. (Urechia, Coliba Măriucăi, 96) ‘Come quick, (if you) please, the horseman added.’

Note that the interlocutor can be omitted, as in (11) and (12) or explicitly indicated, as in (13). Similarly the address to the interlocutor can be expressed with different degrees of formality as in (13) and (14). (13)

‘Mă rog dumneavoastră, boieri, iertaţi-mă!’ striga el aruncându-se în genunchi. (Urechia, Logofătul, 77) ‘“I beg your highnesses, forgive me!” he cried, kneeling in front of them.’

(14)

‘Atunci’ zic eu ‘mă rog ţie, nu mă lăsa! . . . știu că pot conta pe amiciţia ta și nu-mi permit . . . ’ (Caragiale, Momente și schiţe, 273) ‘ “Then” I say, “I beg of you, don’t let me down ! . . . I know I can count on your friendship and I don’t take the liberty of . . .”’

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

91

In this regard it is interesting to note that when writers intend to simulate an archaic use of language, they frequently resort to the performative use of mă rog, as in (15) and (16) below. (15)

Una răspunse moldovenește, c-un glas dulce: ‘Mă rog domniilor voastre, pe cine căutaţi?’ (Sadoveanu, Fraţii Jderi, 260) ‘One of them (of the women) answered in a sweet voice: ‘“I beg your pardon, dear gentlemen, who are you looking for?”’

(16)

Pe cine căutaţi, mă rog domniilor voastre? Spuneţi anume. (Sadoveanu, Fraţii Jderi, 260) ‘Who are you looking for, I beg your pardon, dear gentlemen? State the names clearly.’

Another typical context of use features mă rog in parenthetic position, mainly serving as a hedge mitigating a request, as in (17), where the speaker asks for further information, or introduces a command, as that of waiting expressed in (18). (17)

‘Mă iertaţi, domnilor, dar . . . cu cine am, mă rog, onoarea?’ ‘Cu studenţi!’ strigă băiatul. (Caragiale, Momente și schiţe, 104) ‘“Pardon me, gentlemen, but . . . . who do I have the honour of speaking to, please?” “To the students!” shouted the boy.’

(18)

‘Primesc scrisoarea asta de la un prieten din provincie.’ ‘Aaa, din provincie . . . Mergem, mergem!’ ‘Staţi, mă rog, are să meargă numai unul.’ (Bassarabescu, Pe drezină, 5) ‘“I have received this letter from a friend living in a small provincial town.” “Ah, a small provincial town . . . We’re going, we’re in!” “Wait a minute, please, only one of you is going.”’

Crucially, it has to be remarked that the co-occurrence of mă rog with an imperative constitutes a plausible critical context that probably triggered and enhanced the development of new pragmatic functions. The frequent occurrence with imperatives in directive acts is likely to have fostered the use of the mă rog as parenthetical, especially in the left periphery, where it gradually acquired its new mitigating and intersubjective function, i.e. that of softening the content of the request expressed by the juxtaposed imperative (cf. again Chapter 5 this volume, on similar reflections on Latin quaeso and Italian prego). Consider the following example, illustrating this specific context of occurrence: (19) Mă rog, dacă nu vă supăraţi, aveţi apă? (Caragiale, Momente și schiţe, 160) ‘Pardon me/please, if you don’t mind, do you have some water?’

92

Michaela Livescu

From such contexts, mă rog came to acquire the status of courtesy marker, thereby undergoing a process of semantic bleaching. The next examples neatly show that mă rog can also occur as a clause-initial parenthetical introducing a direct question, where the original performative meaning is diluted: (20)

‘Mă rog, jupâneasă, știi dumneata unde e strada Pacienţii?’ ‘Asta e, măiculiţă.’ (Caragiale, Momente și schiţe, 235) ‘“Pardon me, madam, would you possibly know where the Patience Street is?” “This is it, my dear.”’

(21)

‘Mă rog, aici este domnul Nae frizerul?’ ‘Aici este, da’ nu-i acasa.’ (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 250) ‘“Sorry to disturb, is it the place where Mr Nae, the barber, lives?” “Yes, it is, but he’s not at home.”’

In these and many other examples, one can take the use of the pronoun of medium politeness dumneata ‘you’ in example (20) and the noun domnul ‘Mister’ in example (21) as devices intended to further mark politeness and deference, especially in asymmetrical and formal contexts. Interestingly, mă rog can occur alone, without modifying any other verb or introducing a subsequent request. Its main function is that of apologizing for a previous act the speaker feels guilty for, as exemplified by the passages given below as (22) and (23), where mă rog is strengthened by the concomitant use of pardon (juxtaposed to mă rog in (22)) and scuză-mă ‘excuse me’ in (23). (22)

Rică: Mă rog, pardon, vina nu e nici a mea, nici a dumitale, nici a madam Ziţii, este a tăbliţii de la poartă. (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 74) ‘Rică: Please, I beg your pardon, if I may, the fault is neither mine, nor yours, nor Madam Ziţa’s, it is the door plate’s.’

(23)

Mă rog ţie, scuză-mă. Eram zdrobit de oboseală nu mai puteam . . . (Caragiale, Momente și schiţe, 95) ‘I beg of you, excuse me. I was dog tired and I couldn’t . . . . .’

Note however that in some rare cases mă rog loses its polite meaning of hedging a request, and is used to strengthen a direct and strong request: (24)

Mă rog, domnişoară, aveţi sau n-aveţi cravate de frac? (Teodoreanu, Hronicul măscăriciului Vălătuc, 158) ‘I insist, miss, do you have white bow ties or not?’

Contexts such as that provided in (24) above testify to a clear process of semantic bleaching whereby this verb, originally expressing reverential requests and prayers strongly linked with awe and respect, began to be used as a desemanticized marker

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

93

with a mitigating value, but also with a function apt to introduce direct questions of different kinds. Finally, it is interesting to note that the use of mă rog has acquired specific sociolinguistic values, exemplified in (25) and (26). (25)

‘Am fost poftit să trec negreșit, încă de astă vară . . . de către d-l deputat Gogu Ionescu, la băile Sângeorz, în Transilvania.’ ‘A, din Transilvania?’ murmură Grigore cu un interes care-l încurajă pe interlocutorul său să confirme mai apăsat. ‘Da, mă rog, din Transilvania.’ (Rebreanu, Răscoala, 63) ‘“I was invited to call in, by all means, since last summer . . . by Mr MP Gogu Ionescu, at the Sângeorz spa, in Transylvania.” “Oh, yes, from Transylvania?” Grigore muttered with interest, which made his interlocutor reinforce his words: “Yes, if you please, from Transylvania.”’

(26)

Domnul merge la birje. Birjarul doarme pe capră. Domnul: Haide, birjar! Birjarul: Nu slobod . . . este muștiriu, mo roc . . . Domnul: Care muştiriu? Birjarul: Nu știu, la mine, mo roc . . . Domnul: De unde l-ai luat? Birjarul: Ghe acolò, mo roc. Domnul: Apoi, nu sunt eu ? Birjarul: Jè ! la domnu este, mo roc . . . (Caragiale, Momente și schiţe, 235) ‘The gentleman walks to the cab. The cabman is sleeping on the driver’s seat. The gentleman: Let’s go, man! The cabman: Not free, client have . . . pardon you . . . The gentleman: What client? The cabman: Me not know . . . . . . pardon you . . . . The gentleman: Where did you take him from? The cabman: From that place . . . . . . pardon you . . . . The gentleman: Is it not me, man? The cabman: Yaa! Gentleman is . . . . . pardon you . . . .’

These values are associated with regional varieties (25) or with the characteristic uses of the marker in groups of speakers belonging to linguistic minorities (26). 6.2.3 Mă rog as circumstantial marker In some routinized contexts, mă rog can also function to tone down a previous utterance which the speaker perceives as likely to offend, as exemplified in (27).

94

Michaela Livescu

(27) ‘Asta nu se poate, dar acceptăm o extrem de scurtă întrevedere!’ ‘Mă rog, mă rog, se poate și așa.’ (Mircea, Poveste, 92) ‘“This is not possible, but we agree to meet him briefly!” “All right, all right/Fine, fine, it’s all right with me.”’ In a similar vein, in the passage below mă rog introduces a clarification of the preceding statement through which the speaker expresses his point of view on the topic he is talking about: (28)

Jupân Dumitrache: N-o mai maltrata, domnule, măcar cu o vorbă bună. Mă rog, o dată ce nu e bărbatul levent, ce fel de casă să mai fie ș-aia? (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 22) ‘Jupan Dumitrache: Well, . . . , he would no longer “maltreatˮ her with a sweet word, at least. Pray, what kind of a marriage is that when the husband is no longer a gentleman?’

Probably stemming from these uses of the marker, a related function subsequently arose—that of conveying the correction of one’s account, thus introducting an afterthought (29): (29)

Eu și nevastă-mea, mă rog, vreau să spun fosta mea nevastă, eram colegi de liceu. Vă daţi seama, la nuntă a venit toată clasa. (Ojog-Brașoveanu, Ștafeta, 88) ‘I and my wife, well, I want to say my ex-wife, were in the same class. You can imagine that the whole class came to our wedding.’

By correcting one part of the assertion, the speaker does not retract his statement but qualifies it, thus maintaining face, protecting himself from a potentially embarrassing situation. 6.2.4 Mă rog as a modalizing marker Many pragmatic functions performed by mă rog have hedging values and, depending on the context of occurrence, can have different pragmatic nuances (see section 6.4 for different modalizing values). In some routinized contexts, mă rog can function as a modalizer that hedges the reception of the interlocutor’s point of view. This use is exemplified in (30) below: (30)

‘Mulţumesc, eu nu beau bere.’ ‘De ce?’ ‘E amară.’ ‘Mă rog, fiecare cu gustul lui.’ (Băieșu, Iubirea e un lucru foarte mare, 15) ‘“Thanks, I don’t drink beer.” “Why not?” “It’s bitter.” “Pray, it’s your choice.”’

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

95

In (30) the speaker accepts the interlocutor’s wish, although he would have preferred another solution. In a similar vein, in (31) the speaker puts forward his personal point of view contrasting with that maintained by the interlocutor’s (‘but I don’t think he needs such a favour’), also communicating, however, that the matter is after all irrelevant to him (‘it’s your business’; cf. ‘if that’s what you like’ in (32)). In such context mă rog ultimately serves to signal formal assent and, in parallel, to distance the speaker from a statement that he does not fully approve. (31)

‘Dacă mă roagă să-i duc un pachet, să zicem lui taică-său, nu-l pot refuza.’ ‘Mă rog, treaba dumitale, dar nu cred că are nevoie de asemenea comision.’ (Mocanu, Acţiunea ‘Troia’, 23) ‘“If he asks me to take something to his father, let’s say, I can’t refuse him.” “Well, it’s your business, but I don’t think he needs such a favour.”’

(32)

‘Parcă tot e mai bine la ‘Crizantema’?’ ‘Nu, e mai bine aici. E mai puţină lume. Putem discuta în liniște.’ ‘Mă rog, dacă îţi place ţie!’ (Constantin, Enigma ‘Profesor Rebegea’, 257) ‘“I say, wasn’t it better at the other pub, the Crizantema?” “No, it’s cosier here. It is not so crowded. We can talk in peace.” “Well/Whatever, if that’s what you like.”’

In the passage reported as (33) below, the formal assent provided by the speaker (‘as you wish’) does not restrain him from proceeding with his intention, namely that of putting the interlocutor’s name on the list. This example neatly illustrates that mă rog can constitute a communicative device to conclude a dialogic (often asymmetric) exchange where the interlocutors have diverging ideas, but in the end one of them gets the upper hand and imposes his decision, but employs pragmatically the hedging value of mă rog. (33)

Director: Hai, tovarăși, cineva trebuie să spargă gheaţa. Tovarășul Pascalide? Pascalide: Nu . . . Poate mai pe urmă . . . Director: Mă rog . . . dar eu te înscriu totuși . . . Haideţi tovarăși! (Baranga, Opinia publică, 78) ‘Director: Come on, comrades, someone must break the ice. Comrade Pascalide? Pascalide: Not now . . . . a bit later . . . . Director: As you wish . . . but I’ll enter your name on the list anyway . . . Speak up, comrades!’

Note that in all the cases mentioned so far in this section, mă rog also constitutes a turn-closing device that the speaker uses to hedge a strong conversational move. Similarly, the marker can constitute a communicative device designed to hedge contrasting point of views within a given conversational move. This use probably

96

Michaela Livescu

originated from the politeness semantics acquired by this pragmatic marker, presumably used frequently by speakers to politely introduce points of view different from those expressed by other interlocutors. Mă rog can be found in parenthetic position as a hedge that softens a potential intruding or insolent question. In (34) the speaker formally apologizes for the question which is being asked, while in (35) he begs pardon while asking for further, perhaps private, information: (34)

‘Poate că n-ar fi chiar atât de bine! am tatonat terenul.’ ‘Și, mă rog, de ce n-ar fi bine?’ (Constantin, Astă seară, relache, 167) ‘“Maybe it’s not the best idea! I have explored the ground.” “And, I beg your pardon, why is it not the best idea?”’

(35)

‘Ești pensionarul nostru?’ ‘Da, sunt.’ ‘Și, mă rog, ce pensie ai dumneata?’ (Sălcudeanu, Un biet bunic și o biată crimă, 214) ‘“Did you retire from our institution?” “Yes, I did.” “(And), if you don’t mind, how much do you get?”’

Likewise, in examples (36) and (37) the speaker feels that the question may be irreverent and apologizes for it. In similar cases, mă rog also functions as a communicative device that enables the speaker to make the discourse proceed regardless of potentially impolite conversational moves: (36)

‘Nu va voi să discute.’ ‘Şi de ce, mă rog?’ (Constantin, Crizanteme pentru Erna, 109) ‘“He won’t talk.” “May I ask why not?”’

(37) ‘Aș fi foarte mulţumit dacă . . . răzbunarea ei nu va avea pentru ea consecinţe penale.’ ‘Și, mă rog, de ce ai fi mulţumit?’ (Constantin, Crizanteme pentru Erna, 69) ‘“I would be very pleased if . . . . her revenge had no legal consequences for her.” “And why would you be so pleased, if I may ask?”’ Note that in asymmetrical contexts mă rog can also assume a very different nuance, that of introducing an arrogant question without mitigating it at all: (38) ‘Și, mă rog, din partea cui vine ordinul?’ ‘Sunt noul șef, numit de curând.’ (Neamţu, Balada căpitanului Haag, 95) ‘“If you don’t mind, who has issued the order?” “I have, as the recently nominated chief of police.”’

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

97

Simlarly, mă rog can also convey the speaker’s negative judgement about a statement made by the interlocutor. In this case, the marker serves to introduce a contrasting perspective, therefore functioning as a communicative tool to introduce new points of view and to manage virtually conflicting perspectives. Example (39) shows this value: the speaker clearly manifests impatience and indifference with regard to his interlocutor’s decision, and criticizes him by underscoring its being totally pointless: (39)

‘Ce vreţi să aflaţi de la ea?’ ‘Vreau să aflu dacă ea știe unde ascunde profesorul cheia locuinţei când pleacă de acasă.’ ‘Mă rog! Nu credeţi că e un amănunt lipsit de importanţă?’ (Constantin, Enigma ‘Profesor Rebegea’, 369) ‘“And what do you want from her?” “I want to find out whether she knows where the professor puts his house key when he leaves home.” “Well really! Don’t you think it’s a completely unimportant detail?”’

From similar modalizing values, the marker develops pragmatic functions associated with turn-managing. In such contexts mă rog can also function as a communicative tool adopted by speakers in order to manage the alternation of sequential turns constituting conversational units. Together with modalizing values, the marker can occur at the beginning of a sentence and may be used by a speaker to take the floor, thus beginning a new communicative exchange, such as in (40): (40)

‘Mă rog, ce faceţi aici?’ întrebă chipurile amabil domnul Sebastian. ‘Lasă-mă, domnule, în pace, nu vezi că-s amărât?’ (Arion, Trucaj, 125) ‘“Well, well, what are you doing here?” Mr Sebastian asked with pretended amiability. “Leave me alone, man, don’t you see I’m worried sick?”’

By contrast, when mă rog constitutes a turn on its own it is typically used as a turngiving device (see Ghezzi and Molinelli 2012 on similar uses of Italian prego). In (41), the speaker uses mă rog to invite the interlocutor to go on in his conversational move: (41)

‘Îmi permiteţi să vă supăr o clipă?’ zise mareșalul jovial și cu o umilitate jucată. ‘Mă rog’ îl invită el cu capul în jos. (Călinescu, Scrinul Negru, 612) ‘“May I bother you for a moment?” the marshal said with false humility. Inclining his head, he invited the marshal, “Please!”’

Last, in some contexts mă rog can be interpreted as a hesitation marker that fills pauses in speech, thus causing a temporary halt in turn alternation. In (42) the speaker is not sure about his decision, namely to be or not to be prepared to do

98

Michaela Livescu

something, and takes time to plan his answer properly before producing and expressing it: (42) Străinul spuse: ‘Deh, tot pentru treaba de care am discutat. Acum sper că sunteţi pregătit.’ ‘Mă rog, mă rog,’ zise părintele, ducându-și mâna la ureche. ‘Mă rog . . . ’ ‘Sunteţi gata, nu-i așa?’ (Damian, Pisica de Eritreea, 58) ‘The stranger said: “I say, about the same thing we already talked (about). I hope you are prepared now.” “Well now, well now,” the priest said, raising a hand to his ear. “Well . . . ” “You are ready, aren’t you?”’ Similar cases are presented in (43) and (44) below, where the speaker clearly hesitates while trying to find the right words to describe the person (43) or animal (44) he’s talking about. This difficulty in retrieving the relevant piece of information is overridden by the use of mă rog as a verbal tic and pause-filler: (43)

‘Nu trebuie să ascundeţi nimic,’ îl dojenește Mihai. El îi răspunde fără să-l privească, rușinat parcă de ceea ce a spus până acum. ‘Mă rog . . . o fostă legătură . . . un mașinist . . . Lică, Lică Grozavu, șeful mașinist de la teatrul nostru.’ (Berciu, Invidia, 163) ‘“You shouldn’t hide anything,” Mihai says in a reproachful voice. He answers without looking at him, as if ashamed of what he had said before. “Well . . . . a former connection of mine . . . . a mechanic . . . Lică, Lică Grozavu, a mechanic from our theatre.”’

(44) ‘Dar dacă acolo a fost călcată o oaie care traversa şoseaua?’ ‘O oaie? Dar nu prea sunt oi în zona aceea.’ ‘Mă rog . . . putea fi un iepure, o căprioară . . . ceva . . . un animal, acolo.’ (Timcu, Enigmă pe autostradă, 38) ‘“What if a sheep crossing the road was run over?” “A sheep? There are no sheep in that area.” “Whatever . . . or a hare, a deer . . . something . . . an animal . . .”’ 6.2.5 Mă rog as an attention-getter Lastly, mă rog has acquired in Romanian the status of attention-getter, i.e. a pragmatic tool used to get the interlocutor’s attention. In (45) and (46), the speaker takes the floor by calling the audience’s attention to what he is going to say: (45)

Farfuridi: Mă rog, daţi-mi voie! Știţi care e opinia mea în privinţa revizuirii? (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 173) ‘Farfuridi: Can I have your attention, please? Do you know my opinion regarding changes?’

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

99

(46) Cârciumarul își vârî capul pe ușă și vorbi mieros mușteriilor: ‘Mă rog dumneavoastră . . . fierbe vinul în clocot . . . ’(Rebreanu, Ion, 192) ‘The innkeeper thrust his head into the room and spoke to his customers with sweet words: “I beg your pardon . . . the wine is boiling hot . . .”’ Note that in other languages this task is often performed by perception verbs pointing to vision or auditory modalities, as clearly illustrated by the English translation provided in (47): (47)

‘Aud, cucoană!’ ‘Mă rog, ce ţi-am spus eu când ţi-am poruncit să-mi gătești păișoarele de bumbac pentru sprâncene? Aud?’ (Alecsandri, Opere, 102) ‘“Yes, ma’m!” “Listen, what did I tell you when I ordered to have my eyebrow cosmetics prepared? What?”’

In these contexts mă rog focuses the hearer’s attention on the subsequent piece of information, thus highlighting it.

6.3 Concluding remarks I would like to offer the following observations derived from my preliminary work on mă rog as it is used in various Romanian texts. From a morphosyntactic perspective, the analysis developed in this chapter has clearly shown that the frozen form mă rog pragmaticalized as a topic-free, incidental pragmatic marker that is positionally mobile, as it can appear in virtually all positions: left or right periphery or intermediate position. However, it occurs more frequently in the left periphery or medial positions. Like all parenthetical elements, it is not part of the sentence, as it is syntactically independent. As has been shown, it can appear in all types of sentence—statements, interrogatives, or exclamatives. Mă rog has undergone both fossilization of form and decategorialization, as the resulting pragmatic marker is syntactically unanalysed and cannot be characterized as a properly inflected form of the verb (a) ruga. When used in oral speech it is associated with varying intonations depending on communicative intentions. It can also be associated with nonverbal elements, such as grimaces, or gestures of the head or hands. In interrogative or exclamatory simple or complex sentences it is frequently preceded by și ‘and’ or dar ‘but, however’, which function as connectors. As for its functions, it has been shown that the process of pragmaticalization of mă rog was probably triggered and fostered by its original performative semantics. In addition to its main semantic meaning, the verb has progressively acquired

100

Michaela Livescu

secondary meanings. These meanings have favoured the development of pragmatic functions. Mă rog gradually acquired a mitigating, politeness-motivated function in incidental contexts when co-occurring with imperatives, thus softening direct requests and commands. At this first stage, the correlation with the original meaning is still recognizable (I beg your pardon > pardon/please). From the politeness value, other related functions gradually emerged, namely those of expressing a concession or hedging. In such contexts, especially in incidental constructions, the marker has a hedging value, thus developing a social deictic function and intersubjective values. These patterns of development gave rise to a high multifunctional pragmatic marker, also witnessed by the fact that in one and the same textual occurrence, mă rog may also have plural effaced, secondary meanings, thus having two or three simultaneously distinct functions. The degree of pragmaticalization of the marker is characterized in terms of functions performed, since its process of pragmaticalization has gone through at least four stages:  



Stage A: mă rog is used with a politeness value in requests. In these contexts the correlation with the initial meaning is still recognizable. Stages B and C: the marker acquires circumstantial and modalizing values, becoming highly polyfunctional and, thus, having numerous and nuanced functions. Stage D: the marker is used in interactional contexts as a verbal tic, a meaningless word, used to fill in an apparent gap.

As shown in this chapter, as early as the 19th century mă rog was used with a large number of pragmatic values, with no crucial differences between Muntenia and Moldavia, and apparently as part of urban speech. In Modern Romanian mă rog is very frequently used, and its functions are, apparently, even richer than those presented above.

6.4 Appendix 6.4.1 Uses of mă rog (a) Polite request

(1)

Mă rog domniilor voastre, nu mă lăsaţi, că pe urmă domnia sa Iaţco, stăpânul meu, mă jupuiește de viu. (Sadoveanu, Fraţii Jderi, 416) ‘I pray/I beg/I implore Your Highnesses, don’t let me down, because His Highness Iatsko, my master, will skin me alive.’

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

101

(b) Circumstantial value

Concession (2)

‘Pentru cei dintâi trei ani te iau eu în antrepriză, cu 12 mii de franci pe an, vrei?’ ‘Ieși la covrigi . . . ’ ‘Mă rog, primești?’ (Vlahuţă, Dan, 131) ‘“I’ll take you by contract for the first 3 years, 12,000 francs a year, all right?” “Take care not to get on the rocks . . . ” “It’s my business/Don’t bother/Never mind, agreed/are you in?”’

(3) Mă scuzaţi, eu nu cumpăr. Vreau numai să întreb ceva. Dar, mă rog, dacă vreţi neapărat, pot să stau și la coadă! (Băieșu, Iubirea e un lucru foarte mare, 30) ‘Sorry, I’m not buying anything. I only want to get some information. But, well, if you insist, I can always stay in the queue!’ Concession þ cause (4) Caţavencu: Coana Joiţica, mai cuminte ca toţi, mă cheamă, și eu, politicos, iată-mă, gata să-i sărut mâna cu respect. Mă rog, n-ai ce-i face, mâna care-ţi dă mandatul. (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 150) ‘Catavencu: Ma’m Joitica, more reasonable than all, sends word she wants to see me and I . . . . here I am, ready to kiss her hand with great respect. What can I say, there’s no choice, the hand that entrusts you with the mandate.’ (c) Modalizing value

Simulated envy (5) ‘A treia premieră e piesa unui debutant, nu? Munteanu.’ ‘Cronicarul?’ ‘Scrie și cronici? Nu știam. Mă rog, la piese de debut se bagă artileria grea, d’ăia marii, eu n-am loc.’ ‘“The third premiere is of a debutant, is it not? Munteanu.” “Of the columnist?” “Does he have a column also? I didn’t know. Well, the heavy artillery is used at premieres, that’s why I can’t get myself a place.”’ (Munteanu, Semnale, 115) Distrust Real (6) ‘Mă rog, poţi să te scoli de dimineaţă?’ ‘Ei asta-i ! S-a făcut frig.’ (Kenereș, Rochia de crin, 41) ‘“I say . . . , can you wake up early in the morning?” “Come on! It’s cold by now!”’

102

Michaela Livescu

(7)

‘Citesc un ziar . . . Mai beau un ceai . . . Mai fumez o ţigară . . . ’ ‘Alo! Mă rog, s-ar putea să vorbesc cu domnul diriginte?’ ‘V-am spus că lipsește.’ (Teodoreanu, Hronicul măscăriciului Vălătuc, 171) ‘“I read a newspaper . . . . I have another cup of tea . . . another cigarette . . . ” “Hello! Please, could I talk to the postmaster?” “I told you he’s missing.”’

(8)

‘Nu cred că el m-a minţit . . . ’ ‘Și, mă rog, ce te face să fi tras o asemenea concluzie?’ (Rovan, Pătratul atru trei laturi, 30) ‘“I don’t think he lied to me . . . ” “And, I beg your pardon, what made you come to this conclusion?”’

A favour (9) ‘Dacă ar fi fost și un martor care să fi văzut accidentul de aici de pe trotuar, . . . cred că v-aţi fi convins cu adevărat că sunt nevinovată.’ ‘Mă rog, o să facem apel prin presă și poate o să găsim un martor.’ (Tandin, Dilemele căpitanului Roman, 35) ‘“Had there been a witness around to see the accident from the sidewalk . . . I think you’d be truly convinced that I was innocent.” “It’s all right, we’ll put it in the newspaper and maybe we’ll find a witness.”’ Irony (10) ‘Eu totuși ţi-am făcut horoscopul și . . . te avertizez că horoscopul n-a ieșit deloc bine.’ ‘Nu mai spune! Mă rog, și ce spunea horoscopul meu?’ (Constantin, Astă seară, relache, 178) ‘“I did your horoscope and . . . I warn you that it is not good al all.” “Come on, be serious/You don’t mean it! Well, and what did my horoscope tell you (if you don’t mind)?”’ (11)

‘Nu mă credeţi nici dacă m-aș jura că nu m-am dus pentru ce gândiţi dumneavoastră.’ ‘Mă rog, și pentru ce anume gândesc eu că te-ai dus?’ (Constantin, Enigma ‘Profesor Rebegea’, 226) ‘“You won’t believe me even if I gave you my word that I didn’t go there for what you think I did for.” “My, my! And what do I think you went there for?”’

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian

103

Protest (contradiction) (12) ‘Nu-mi dau pace oamenii dumneavoastră.’ ‘Și, mă rog, ce-ţi fac oamenii mei?’ (Constantin, Enigma ‘Profesor Rebegea’, 49) ‘“Your people don’t leave me alone.” “And what do they do to you, if you please?”’ Contempt and disregard (13)

Mă rog, cine e negustorul ăsta? (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 250) ‘Who’s this merchant, after all?’

(14)

Când a început mandatul de cancelar al lui Gerhard Schröder, la prima lui vizită, a fost în România—după ce a discutat cu Radu Vasile despre fotbal, mă rog—a venit la Cotroceni și a avut loc discuţia oficială, după care ne-am retras într-o cameră. (Emil Constantinescu, interview, Adevărul, 13–14 November 2011) ‘At the beginning of his mandate as a chancellor, at his first visit to Romania Gerhard Schröder—after having talked with Radu Vasile about football, whatever— he came over to the Cotroceni Palace where the official talks took place, then we retired to a separate room.’

Disappointment (15)

Prietenele mele, mă rog, le pot numi la plural, că sunt două, singurele două care mi-au mai rămas, singurele care au rezistat stoic poveștilor mele, sunt de aceeași părere. (Boitan, Hoţii de timp, 39) ‘My friends, well, I can use the plural because there are two, the only two friends I have been left with, the only two who have survived my stories, share the same opinion.’

(16)

‘Nu-i posibil să dispară singur un cadavru.’ ‘De ce singur?’ ‘Mă rog, nu singur. L-a luat altcineva. Dar cum?’ (Constantin, Enigma ‘Profesor Rebegea’, 367) ‘“A body cannot disappear all by itself.” “Why by itself ?” “Come on, not by itself. It was taken away. But how (did they do it)?”’

Temporary acceptance of a situation (17)

‘În ziua când a fost omorât eu eram la Atena.’ ‘Mă rog! Cu excepţia dumitale, oricare ar putea fi asasinul.’ (Constantin, Crizanteme pentru Erna, 326) ‘“The day when he was killed I was in Athens.” “If you say so! Anybody can be the murderer except you.”’

104 (18)

Michaela Livescu ‘Dar să revenim la obiectul cercetărilor noastre.’ ‘Mă rog,’ conveni Radu, chinuit de întrebări și îndoieli. (Știrbu, Însemnările, 45) ‘“Let’s get back to the object of our research.” “So be it,” Radu agreed, questions and doubt nagging him.’

Fear (19)

‘Mă, mânca-v-aș oichii, ori de mine vorbiţ acolo?’ ‘Nu, mă rog frumos, d’ale noastre!’ (Pellea, Să râdem cu Amza Pellea, 84) ‘“Hi, there, my dear, are ye talkin’ about me?” “Nay, man, don’t be mad with us. We’re talkin’ about our problems.”’

(20)

Manufacturierul se sperie: ‘Mă rog, am zis eu că nu dau? Eu am zis să fie sănătos!’ (Călinescu, Scrinul Negru, 432) ‘The manufacturer is scared: “What then, did I say I wouldn’t give . . .? I only wished him to be in good health!”’

Modesty—real (21) ‘Cui dracu’ i-ar fi ușor . . . Nici dumitale . . . ’ ‘Mă rog, mă rog . . . În orice caz, vă mulţumesc.’ (Sălcudeanu, Un biet bunic și o biată crimă, 9) ‘“Who the hell might find it easy . . . . Not even you . . .” “Let’s not speak about it . . . Thank you, anyway . . .”’ Modesty—hidden haughtiness (22)

La dineul acela erau la masă—eu care, mă rog, eram agreat, în mod curios, de toată lumea—foștii președinţi ai Croaţiei, Sloveniei, Kosovo, primul ministru al Serbiei, doi foști președinţi ai Albaniei. (Emil Constantinescu, interview, Adevărul, 13–14 November 2011) ‘At that formal dinner were present—well, myself, most curiously liked by everybody—the ex-presidents of Croatia, Slovenia, Kosovo, the Serbian PM, two ex-presidents of Albania.’

Curiosity (23) ‘Zâmbesc, mă arăt înţelegător, dar nu-mi pot stăpâni curiozitatea.’ ‘Mă rog, cine e Lică?’ (Berciu, Invidia, 82) ‘“I smile, I show understanding, but I cannot refrain my curiosity.” “Who is this Lică, after all?”’

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian (24)

105

‘Eu știu cine e vinovat de moartea lui!’ ‘Știţi?’ ‘Cred că știu, Ilinca!’ ‘Și, mă rog, cine e Ilinca?’ (Constantin, Astă seară, relache, 123) ‘“I know who is to blame for his death!” “You know?” “I think I know, Ilinca!” “And who is this Ilinca, after all?”’

Threat (25)

‘Stimabile domn . . . mie-mi place să joc scurt, scurt. Situaţia noastră o putem dezlega numaidecât.’ ‘Ia poftim, mă rog, ia poftim!’ (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 150) ‘“Dear Sir . . . I like to play short, very short. We can instantly solve the present state of things.” “My, my, take care!”’

No comment (26)

Prezentatorul: Eu, în locul dumneavoastră, stăteam acasă. Știu, e luni, nu există program la televiziune, mă rog. Dar sunt și alte distracţii. (Baranga, Opinia publică, 23) Presenter: ‘If I were you I would have stayed at home. I know, it is Monday, there is no program on TV, that’s it. But there are other forms of entertainment.’

Indignation—real (27)

‘Ce, mă rog, nu răspunzi ici la ce-ţi zic eu?’ și înălţă glasul. (Ghica, Istoria lui Alecu, 10) ‘“Why on earth don’t you answer my words?” he raised his voice.’

(28)

Ce vreţi, mă rog, biata copilă să nu vază și ea nimic, să nu știe ce este pân lume? (Pelimon, Hoţii și Hagiul, 53) ‘What the heck do you want? The poor girl should never visit a place or never know what’s in the world?’

(29)

Ce tot îndrugi acolo, domnule avocat? zise Brînduș înfuriat. Ia spune-mi, mă rog, este vreo articulă în codica penalie care să-ţi dea voie dumitale să strici casele oamenilor? (Bujoreanu, Mistere din București, 279) ‘What are you babbling about there, barrister? Brînduș said nervously. Tell me, if you please, is there any article in the penal code that allows you to ruin people’s marriages?’

106

Michaela Livescu

False and insincere (30) Auzi, mă rog, minune! . . . Să uit eu că azi e sărbătoarea Anicăi? (Alecsandri, Opere, 178) ‘Oh, my, my, what a thing! How could I have forgotten that today is Anica’s birthday?’ Rhetorical (31) Auzi, mă rog? După ce te dezbracă de caftanul boieriei, după ce-ţi ieu sufletele de ţigani de le dau drumul sub cuvânt de libertate . . . apoi te mai și poreclesc retrograd . . . tureatcă . . . strigoi . . . strigoi? (Alecsandri, Opere, 65) ‘Just listen, if you please! After they take away your high rank, after they take away from you all the gipsy slaves and set them free . . . they (still) call you a reactionary . . . a bootlegger . . . a ghost . . . a ghost?’ (32)

Adică, mă rog, de ce să se hrănească o mulţime de trântori pe lângă albine, din mierea budgetului și eu să fac zâmbre deoparte? Au doar nu-s și eu pământean simpatriot? (Alecsandri, Opere, 102) ‘And, after all, why should a bunch of sluggards feed themselves along with the bees from the honey of the budget while I stay on one side, my mouth watering profusely?’

Defiance, contesting authority, arrogance (33)

‘Dar, mă rog, în ce calitate mă legitimaţi? Aveţi dispoziţie din partea cuiva?’ ‘Din partea mea, că reprezint puterea locală.’ (Sălcudeanu, Un biet bunic și o biată crimă, 71) ‘“If you don’t mind, in what capacity do you ask for my identity card? Do you have orders from the authorities?” “In my own capacity because I represent the local authorities.”’

(d) Attention getter

(34)

Da’ să vedeţi, mă rog, cum s-a întâmplat cu bătaia. Nu eram departe de Dorohoi . . . (Alecsandri, Opere, 54) ‘Let me tell you, please, what happened ( . . . ). I was not far from Dorohoi . . .’

(e) Verbal tic

(35)

‘Pentru cine votăm noi, pentru cine lucrăm noi? Noi încă nu știm . . . ’ ‘Mă rog, aveţi puţintică . . . £răbdare)’ (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 133) ‘“Who’re we voting for, who’re we working for? We still don’t know . . . ” “Well, have a bit of patience . . .”’

Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian (36)

107

Trahanache: Mă rog, dacă mă iubești, fă-mi hatârul . . . dorinţa adunării, stimabile . . . (Caragiale, Opere i: Teatru, 133) ‘Trahanache: If you please, do me a favour, if you love me . . . the audience’s wish, most honoured president . . .’

Parody of the overuse of mă rog and of the infinitive used as imperative (19th century) (37)

‘Mă rog, a se asculta toţi când se citește!’ ‘Ce faci, Mitică?’ ‘Mă rog, a nu se conversa nimini când se citește!’ ‘Mă rog, a nu se căsca!’ (Caragiale, Momente și schiţe, 284–5) ‘“If you please, everybody to listen when they read!” “What are you doing there, Mitică?” “If you please, nobody to converse when they read!” “If you please, nobody to yawn!”’

6.4.2 Sample of Romanian texts Alecsandri, Vasile (1977). Opere. Bucharest: Editura Minerva. Arion, George (1986). Trucaj. Bucharest: Editura Albatros. Băieșu, Ion (1967). Iubirea e un lucru foarte mare. Bucharest: Editura Tineretului. Baranga, Aurel (1980). Opinia publică. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu. Bassarabescu, Ioan A. (1962). Pe drezină. In Stefan Cazimir (ed.), Pionierii romanului românesc. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Berciu, Ștefan (1979). Invidia. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu. Boitan, Ivona (2010). Hoţii de timp. Bucharest: Editura Crinul. Bujoreanu, Ioan (1962). Mistere din București. In Pionierii romanului românesc. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Călinescu, George (1963). Scrinul Negru. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Caragiale, Ion Luca (1959). Opere i: Teatru. Bucharest: ESPLA. Caragiale, Ion Luca (1995). Momente și schiţe. Bucharest: Editura Vremea. Constantin, Theodor (1966). Enigma ‘Profesor Rebegea’. Bucharest: Editura Militară. Constantin, Theodor (1971). Astă seara, relache. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu. Constantin, Theodor (1973). Crizanteme pentru Erna. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu. Damian, Ștefan (1986). Pisica de Eritreea. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia. Gane, Nicolae (1990). Privighetoarea Socolei. Iași: Editura Junimea. Ghica, Ion (1962). Istoria lui Alecu. In Stefan Cazimir (ed.), Pionierii romanului românesc. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Kenereș, Alina (1985). Rochia de crin. Bucharest: Editura Albatros. Mircea, Marian (1978). Poveste de dragoste cu Andra Cantuniari. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia. Mocanu, Ioan (1977). Acţiunea ‘Troia’. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia. Munteanu, Virgil (1988). Semnale. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia.

108

Michaela Livescu

Neamţu, Leonida (1984). Balada căpitanului Haag. Bucharest: Editura Albatros. Ojog-Brașoveanu, Rodica (1981). Ștafeta. Bucharest: Editura Albatros. Pelimon, Alexandru (1962). Hoţii și Hagiul. In Stefan Cazimir (ed.), Pionierii romanului românesc. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Pellea, Amza (1973). Să rîdem cu Amza Pellea. Craiova: Editura Scrisul Românesc. Rebreanu, Liviu (1963). Răscoala. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Rebreanu, Liviu (1967). Ion. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Rovan, Maria (1971). Pătratul are trei laturi. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu. Sadoveanu, Mihail (1957). Fraţii Jderi. Bucharest: Editura Tineretului. Sălcudeanu, Petre (1970). Un biet bunic şi o biată crimă. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu. Știrbu, Adam (1969). Însemnările agentului. Bucharest: Editura Tineretului. Tandin, Traian (1979). Dilemele căpitanului Roman. Bucharest: Editura Militară. Teodoreanu, Alexandru O. (1966). Hronicul măscăriciului Vălătuc. Bucharest: Editura Tineretului. Timcu, George (1980) Enigmă pe autostradă. Iași: Editura Junimea. Urechia, Vasile A. (1962). Coliba Măriucăi. In Stefan Cazimir (ed.), Pionierii romanului românesc. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Urechia, Vasile A. (1962). Logofătul Baptiste Veveli. In Stefan Cazimir (ed.), Pionierii romanului românesc. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură. Vlahuţă, Alexandru (1964). Dan. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură.

7 Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea S AL V AD O R P O NS B O R DE R Í A

7.1 Introduction: why reformulation markers? Reformulation markers have not always received the attention they deserve in the literature on discourse markers (henceforth DMs). While in Romance languages reformulation markers have been thoroughly studied, defined, and described (see e.g. Gülich and Kotschi 1983; 1995; Roulet 1987; Rossari 1994; Kotschi 2001; Briz Goméz 2001; 2002; Cuenca 2003; Garcés Goméz 2008; 2009), in English linguistics, attention to this group of DMs has been scarce (Fraser 1990; 2006; Blakemore 1996; 2002; Del Saz Rubio 2007; Murillo Ornat 2007). This lack of scholarly analysis could be due to differences in writing styles in Romance and Anglo-Saxon-derived languages, as Cuenca (2003) has pointed out. Nevertheless, the synchronic and diachronic study of reformulation markers like Sp. o sea (lit. ‘or be-SBJV’) can offer crucial insights into the the understanding and development of DMs. Reformulation markers (henceforth RMs) have either grammaticalized the notion of saying (German das heisst, French c’est-à-dire, Spanish es decir), or have been created by rebracketing a demonstrative and a copula (English that is, Italian cioè), unlike Sp. o sea, which is the result of a disjunctive conjunction merging with a copula. How o sea, which was described by the Chilean grammarian Rodolfo Lenz (1920) as a ‘remnant of a sentence with a verb’, became a reformulative discourse marker is a question whose answer will take us from Present-day Spanish (henceforth PDS; section 7.2) back to early Spanish (section 7.4); along this path, the 20th century will play a significant role. Further, the grammaticalization followed by o sea cannot be understood without referring to a theory of discourse units that classifies the different structural configurations which DMs fulfil (section 7.3). Finally, this theory provides a framework for

110

Salvador Pons Bordería

the diachronic evolution of o sea and a more thorough description of other grammaticalization studies (section 7.5).*

7.2 Present-day Spanish values of o sea In PDS, o sea is the non-marked form in the paradigm of reformulation markers. In Prague School terms, this means that o sea has more functions than its reformulative counterparts; its frequency is higher; its distributional restrictions are smaller; and it can replace all other reformulative markers. The synchronic description of o sea can be considered well-established, thanks to previous research (see e.g. Cortés Rodríguez 1991; Schwenter 1996; Martín Zorraquino and Portolés Lázaro 1999; Briz Gómez 2001; Briz Gómez and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002; Cuenca 2001; 2003; Santos 2003; Briz Gómez and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2003; Cuenca and Bach 2007; Murillo Ornat 2007; Garcés Gómez 2008; 2009; Fuentes 2010). All this research basically agrees on the following functions attributed to o sea, exemplified in (1)–(5) below:


Paraphrastic reformulative, induced by the same speaker (self-reformulation) or by a different speaker (hetero-reformulation) (1) Confía en sus amigos, o sea, en los que lo apoyan cuando lo necesita ‘He trusts his friends, or be-SBJV, those who support him whenever he needs it’




Non-paraphrastic, self- or hetero-reformulative (whose limits can even reach denial) (2) Confía en sus amigos, o sea, en esos sinvergüenzas que se ríen de él ‘He trusts his friends, or be-SBJV, those rogues who laugh at him’




Conclusive (3) Ha empezado a llover; o sea, que no vamos a ir a la playa ‘It has started raining; or be-SBJV, we are not going to the beach’




Modal (stressing) (4) ¡Y va y me dice que no! O sea . . . ‘And he goes and tells me no! or be-SBJV . . . ’




Modal (hedging) (5) Yo, o sea, no creo que esté bien eso ‘I, or be-SBJV, I don’t think that’s right’

* This research was supported through Research Project FF12009-07034, ‘Fonocortesía’, funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Cultura. The author wants to thank Pilar Garcés and Elizabeth Traugott, who read a previous version of this chapter, and Debra Westall, who revised the manuscript.

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

111

While offering a complete overview regarding functions, research to date does not address the fact that there is a correlation between the positions o sea can occupy (initial, medial, final, and independent), the discourse units to which such positions refer, and the functions o sea expresses. Following Briz Gómez and Pons Bordería (2010), this is the hypothesis that will be defended throughout this chapter and applied to the diachronic development of Sp. o sea. In favour of this hypothesis, historical data will show (section 7.4) that o sea developed functions in the order: paraphrastic reformulative > conclusive > nonparaphrastic > modal. This development runs parallel to the filling of different discourse positions, and also to that of distinct discourse units, from a narrower to a wider scope. For a better understanding of this hypothesis, section 7.3 will offer a brief introduction to the theory of discourse positions adopted in this chapter.

7.3 Towards a theory of discourse positions In order to properly analyse the question of discourse position, it is useful to consider what it means for a particular DM to be in ‘initial position’. Considering examples (6) to (8), which instances of o sea are in initial position? (6)

O sea/yo no quiero venir ‘or be-SBJV/I don’t want to come’

(7)

Mi primo/o sea/no quiere venir ‘My cousin/ or be-SBJV/doesn’t want to come’

(8)

porque o sea/no quiero venir ‘because or be-SBJV/I don’t want to come’

If ‘initial position’ refers to the first word in a sentence, then o sea appears in initial position in (6), but not in (7) or (8). If ‘initial position’ refers to the first tone unit, then (6) and (8) are in initial position. Lastly, if ‘initial position’ refers to a nonpropositional slot, then o sea in (8) can be either in first position (cannot be embedded into the protasis of a conditional, for instance) or not (porque being the bearer of causal meaning). This question can be answered if a theory of discourse units is available to researchers. It is surprising that the English-language tradition has not addressed this question (beyond the seminal approaches of discourse analysis and conversation analysis). In Romance languages, by contrast, this has been a question of interest since the 1980s (Roulet 1981; Blanche-Benveniste 1990), and such approaches have blossomed over the last fifteen years (exemplified in Pons Bordería, 2014). This chapter adopts the model of discourse units proposed by the Val.Es.Co. Research Group (see Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2003) and exemplified in

112

Salvador Pons Bordería

(9) below. The Val.Es.Co. model uses three different discourse dimensions, six main units, and four positions. Dimensions cross-cut the system of units. At a structural level, units can be seen as talk tokens which must be organized and analysed, regardless of their impact on the conversation. When the dyad speaker–hearer comes into play, structural units will take on a social importance if they have an impact on a given conversation ((9) below illustrates this distinction). Finally, at a lower level, discourse units are bearers of meaning. It is in this sense that it is relevant to speak of informative units. TABLE 7.1 Units and levels in the Val.Es.Co. theory of discourse units Social level Adjacent pairs Turn

Structural level

Informative level

Dialogue Exchange Intervention Act Sub-act

Substantive Adjacent

Directive Subordinate Textual Interpersonal Topicalized Modal

The Val.Es.Co. model distinguishes the following six discourse units (see Table 7.1):1








An intervention is the maximal monologic unit uttered by the same speaker and surrounded by pauses. In (9), interventions are assigned a number to the right of the capital letter identifying the speaker. Interventions can be either initiative— provoking a linguistic reaction (iI); reactive—answering an initiative intervention (rI); or, more commonly, reactive-initiative (r/iI). A turn is the maximal monologic unit accepted by the rest of the conversationalists. A turn, then, is an intervention plus social acceptance. From this definition it follows that every turn is at the same time an intervention, but not every intervention is a turn. In (9), turns are assigned a number to the left of the capital letter identifying the speaker. An exchange is the minimal dialogic unit, defined as the coupling between an initiative intervention plus a reactive(-initiative) intervention.

1 Only the discourse units required for this study will be explained in this section. A more complete description of the entire system can be found in Briz Gómez and Grupo Val.Es.Co. (2003).

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea








113

A dialogue is the maximal dialogic unit, defined as the discourse unit limited by an initiative intervention at its beginning and by a reactive intervention at its end. It follows a prototypical design like the type: iI-r/iI–r/iI–r/iI–r/iI–r/iI–r/iI– r/iI- . . . -rI. An act is the immediate constituent of an intervention, and it is defined as the monologic discourse unit with (full) propositional content and with nonpropositional sub-acts attached to it. An act has clear formal boundaries and is independent (meaning that an act is the minimum requirement for an intervention to exist). In (9), the sign (#) indicates the beginning and the end of acts. A sub-act is the immediate constituent of an act. Defined as a unit with clear formal boundaries, the sub-act does not however need to have full propositional content, and it is dependent on a wider structure, which hosts and provides it with meaning. Adverbial clauses, for instance, can be analysed in most cases as sub-acts. Sub-acts can have propositional meaning (substantive sub-acts) or non-propositional meaning (adjacent sub-acts). The former can be divided into directive (DSS) or subordinate (SSS), whereas the latter divide into interpersonal (IAS), textual (TAS), topicalized (TopAS), and modal (MAS) adjacent sub-acts. In (9), the signs ({) and (}) indicate the beginning and the end of sub-acts. To illustrate the different kinds of sub-act: tags like isn’t it? are analysed as IAS; parenthetical DMs like therefore are assigned the status of TAS; parenthetical topics are often TopAS; and some uses of well regarding the speaker’s stance are MAS.

Example (9) illustrates the units described above: (9)

1A1:# {IAS ee mira IAS}/ {DSS eso es IMPRESIONANTE DSS}# 1A1: :# { IAS er look IAS}/ {DSS that’s IMPRESSIVE DSS}# 2V1: } #{ TAS ÁNGELES TAS}/ {DSS [eso es=] 2V1: } #{ TAS ÁNGELES TAS}/ {DSS [this ss=] A2: [es un-] A2: [it’s a-] 2V2: = una PINTURA DSS}# 2V2: = a PAINTING DSS}# 2A3: #{ MAS ¡ah! MAS}/ {DSS ¡es un trampantojos! DSS}# 2A3: #{ MAS oh! MAS}/ {DSS it’s a trompe-l’oeil! DSS}# 3V3: #claroo#} 3V3: #right#} 3A4: } # {SSS se llama así/ trampantojos SSS}/ {DSS pues no había caído DSS} {IAS ¿eh? IAS}# 3A4: } # {SSS its name/ is trompe-l’oeil SSS}/ {DSS I didn’t know that DSS} {IAS did I? IAS}#

114

Salvador Pons Bordería

In (9), 1A1 is at the same time an intervention and a turn. Compare A1 with A2, which is an intervention not accepted by the rest of the conversationalists, and therefore does not constitute a turn. 1A1 consists of one act, which can be divided into two subacts: #eso es IMPRESIONANTE#, which is a directive substantive sub-act, and #mira#, which is an interactive adjacent sub-act. In addition to a set of units, it is necessary to complete the model with a set of discourse positions if we wish to answer the question posed by (6)–(8) above. In the Val.Es.Co. model, four positions are distinguished: initial, medial, final, and independent (the latter is used only when a single element alone can answer a previous intervention). When combined, positions acquire a meaning only with reference to the unit to which they belong. For instance, initial position within an act hosts functions which cannot be found in initial position within an intervention. This model provides an answer to Traugott’s questions (2012: 22) regarding left and right peripheries: ‘what counts as “periphery”, “edge”, or indeed “initial” and “final”?’. Considering units and positions as parameters, the Val.Es.Co. model offers in principle a finite number of possibilities for a DM, as indicated in Table 7.2:

TABLE 7.2 Positions in the Val.Es.Co. theory of units Unit

Sub-act

Act

Intervention Initiative

Position Initial

Medial

Final

Independent

DSS

SSS

Dialogue Reactive

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

115

Table 7.2 can be simplified in two ways (cf. Table 7.3). First, some of these positions are equivalent to others. For instance, medial positions in interventions ([I . . . p . . . I]) can be best described as initial position of acts, acts being the immediate constituents of interventions [I[A . . . A] [Ap . . . A] I]). Likewise, reactive interventions are only relevant in initial positions. Additionally, independent positions, defined as the place in which a DM is the only element of an answer, can only occur in interventions. TABLE 7.3 Restrictions on positions (light grey areas indicate ‘equivalent to’) Unit

Sub-act

Act

Intervention Initiative

Position

DSS

SSS

Ø

Ø

Dialogue Reactive

Initial

Medial

Final

Independent

Ø

Ø

Second, some positions host only very specific discourse operations (see Table 7.4). For instance, medial position in acts hosts mainly discourse-planning, formulative functions. Conversely, some discourse units host only very specific operations. For example, dialogue is the unit in which topic shift, digression, and return to a previous topic occur. Therefore, the number of active positions is fairly restricted. Returning to examples (6)–(8), reproduced below as (60 )–(80 ), the position question is meaningless unless it is restricted to the unit where it occurs: in (6), o sea is a TAS placed in initial position of an act; in (7), o sea is a MAS in medial position of an act; in (8), o sea is a MAS in internal position of a sub-act: (60 )

#[TAS o sea TAS]/ [DSS yo no quiero venir DSS]# ‘#[ TAS or be-SBJV TAS]/ [DSS I don’t want to come DSS]#’

(70 )

#[DSS Mi primo/ [MAS o sea MAS]/ no quiere venir DSS]# ‘#[DSS My cousin/ [MAS or be-SBJV MAS]/ doesn’t want to come DSS]#’

116 (80 )

Salvador Pons Bordería # [DSS . . . DSS] [SSS porque [MAS o sea MAS]/ no quiero venir SSS]# ‘# [DSS . . . DSS] [SSS because [MAS or be-SBJV MAS]/ I don’t want to comeSSS]#’

TABLE 7.4 Restrictions on positions (II) Unit

Sub-act

Act

Intervention Initiative

Position

DSS

Dialogue Reactive

SSS

Initial

Topic change

Formulative

Medial

Digression

Return to a previous topic

Final

Independent

Ø

Ø

Ø

Ø

The theory of discourse units described here can be successfully applied to grammaticalization studies, especially those in the Traugottian tradition, where the ‘increase in scope’ issue is addressed in terms of the ‘increase in C-command’ notion, adopted by Tabor and Traugott (1998). This chapter will argue that the theory of discourse units outlined above can be of great interest for grammaticalization studies; and to this end it will be applied, in section 7.4, to the historical evolution of the Spanish reformulation marker o sea.

7.4 Diachronic evolution of o sea 7.4.1 The rise of the reformulative meaning 7.4.1.1 O sea as a free construction O sea is first documented as a free construction in 1247.2 In (10), o is a disjunctive conjuction, adjacent to the verb sea (lit. ‘be.SBJV. PRS.3SG’): 2

All data come from the CREA corpus, compiled by the Real Academia Española (RAE).

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea (10)

117

E de los otros omnes qui quier sean. qui foren ropadores o malfeitores. estabilimos que sean enforcados. o sea feita dello sea iusticia corporal. o pierdan todos lures bienes. o sean itados del regno de tot en todo. sin esperança de tornar hy (1245, Fueros de Aragón). ‘And regarding the other men, thieves or burglars, or whoever they may be, we declare that they be hanged, or be-SBJV justice be done, or that they lose all their possessions, or be exiled from the kingdom forever, without ever returning there.’

This is part of a larger construction in which a series of disjuncts is available: sea p o sea q, o sea r . . . , with the following alternates (until 1300) (Table 7.5): TABLE 7.5 O sea-structures in early Spanish sea o o o o

sea sea sea

p p p p p p

o o o o o o

sea sea sea sea sea

q q q q q q

o

r...

The grammar of these structures oscillates between an exclusive and an inclusive disjunctive reading, which often depends on a balance between semantics and pragmatics. In term of semantics, the o . . . o and the sea . . . sea constructions are assigned an exclusive value in PDS descriptive grammars (RAE 2009: 31.3.q and 31.9), but the open series o . . . o . . . o, or the p o sea q structure can involve an inclusive reading. In terms of pragmatics, the interpretation of these constructions often favours an exclusive reading, as in (10), where the penalties for the crime described are supposed to be the only ones applicable in the kingdom—so the series in which o sea is included is no longer an open one. Moreover, this oscillation between the exclusive and the inclusive readings, whether coded or implicated, can be appreciated in the following examples: (11)

De cabo mando que qual quiere que se querrá bannyar o sea uarón o muger, non dé por seruiçio de banno . . . (1300, Fuero de Teruel) ‘Finally, I decree that anyone who wishes to bathe, or be-SBJV, be it a man or a woman, does not use this bath service . . .’

(12)

E toda obra que qual quiere en su raíz fará sea firme et estable, assí que ningún omne ad aquél non contraríe ni le uiede obra la qual ad él plazrá fer, o sea casa o pozo o cárçel o forno o molino o huerto o vinna o otras cosas quales quiere que semegen ad éstas auant dichas. (1300, Fuero de Teruel) ‘And all constructions must be firm and sound, so that no one can blame or forbid anyone to build any construction that he may wish to build, or be-SBJV

118

Salvador Pons Bordería a house or a well or a jail or a kiln or a mill or an orchard or a vineyard, or anything similar to these things.’

From this starting point, attention must focus on which factors favour an equative reading of two former disjunct elements, and on which bridging contexts permit this change to occur. 7.4.1.2 Multicausation in the rise of the reformulative meaning From the initial occurrences of o sea until its interpretation as a reformulative marker, around the 18th–19th centuries, there is a long transition period, in which the literal interpretation of o sea as disjunctive conjunction plus copula is still possible. Therefore, the existence of a reformulative value cannot be conclusively established, even if certain examples, seen with contemporary eyes, could admit such a conclusion. Consider (13), dated 1379: (13)

No supiendo los romanos que deuiessen fazer [ . . . ] vna siruienta la qual auia nombre Tutulla -& segun que algunos dizen auia nombre Filotida- dio por conseio a los senyores que ornassen a ella & a las otras mas fermosas siruientas como a fillas de gentiles hombres [ . . . ] & que las enuiassen[ . . . ] Assin fue fecho. [ . . . ] Los latines eran atendados cerca la ciudat. & a la noche quando las moças durmjeron con los latines, tomaron secretament lures espadas & lures cuchiellos. & Tutulla, o sea Filotida, puyo sobre vna figuera saluage & colgo su ropa de çaga d’ella (1379–1384, Fernández de Heredia, translation of Parallel Lives, by Plutarch) ‘The Romans not knowing what to do [ . . . ] a servant, whose name was Tutulla – although, according to some, she was named Filotida – advised the lords to dress her and the most beautiful servants as lords’ daughters [ . . . ] to send them [ . . . ] And so it was. The Latins had camped near the town and at night, when the wenches slept with the Latins, they secretly took their swords and knives and Tutulla, or be-SBJV Filotida, jumped onto a fig tree and hung her dress on it’

In this example, a character is introduced in the first paragraph with two possible names, Tutulla or Filotida; the second paragraph describes what the character does, identifying it as Tutulla o sea Filotida (lit. ‘Tutulla or be-SBJV. Filotida’).3 Here both the PDS reformulative interpretation of the DM and the literal interpretation of the subjunctive are equally possible: ‘Tutulla, that is, Filotida’ vs ‘Tutulla or perhaps Filotida’. But, in light of later examples from the 15th to 18th centuries, and in the 3

Commas in text were added by the editor and, following the usual practice in philological studies, they will not be taken into account for the explanation given until contemporary Spanish (19th century).

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

119

absence of a conclusive argument to favour the reformulative reading, the more conservative, non-grammaticalized interpretation will be adopted here. Undoubtedly, the reformulative value existed in the 18th century. A metalinguistic gloss by Mayans i Siscar, one of the best grammarians of that time, explicitly indicates the reformulative (in the text, explicative) function of o sea. The context is a gloss to a treaty between Spain and the Vatican. To clarify this example, the gloss and the metalinguistic gloss appear in square brackets: (14)

[[text glossed]No aviendo avido controversia sobre la pertenencia a los Reyes Cathólicos de las Españas del Real Patronato, o sea nómina a los arzobispados, obispados, monasterios i beneficios consistoriales[text glossed]];[[gloss] es a saber, escritos i tassados en los libros de Cámara, quando vacan en los reinos de las Españas[gloss]], [[metalinguistic gloss] porque aquellas palabras, o sea nómina, atendiendo al contexto i la verdad, de ningún modo pueden interpretarse como una proposición rigurosamente disyuntiva i absolutamente exclusiva de la antecedente, sino como explicativa de ella[metalinguistic gloss]] (1753, Mayans y Siscar, Observaciones al concordato de 1753) ‘[[text glossed]Given that there was no controversy about the belonging of the Real Patronato to the Catholic Kings of Spain, or be-SBJV, list of the archbishoprics, bishoprics, monasteries and consistorial benefits[text glossed]];[[gloss] namely, written and documented in the books of the Chambers, when they lack in the Kingdom of Spain, [[metalinguistic gloss] because the words or be-SBJV, list, paying attention to the context and to the truth, cannot be interpreted by any means as a disjunctive proposition, exclusive from a former one; rather, [have to be interpreted] as an explicative proposition[metalinguistic gloss]]’

From Mayans i Siscar’s words, one may infer that he considers the structure o sea nómina a proposition, and that this proposition is an expansion on a previous one. This means that Mayans interpreted sea as a verb (otherwise, it would not be possible to speak of a proposition), and that the bearer of the reformulative value is the conjunction o. Mayans i Siscar’s gloss also suggests that the step from the o [sea [p]] o [sea [q]] construction to p[[o sea] q] also involves an intermediate step p [o [sea q]], which is the bridging context that makes such a change possible. But the rise of the reformulative value in o sea is a complex process and its analysis must consider the following factors:







Ser is no longer bound to a previous member (sea . . . sea > Ø . . . sea) Ser acquires an absolute value in o sea structures Ser has scope over a phrase, not over a sentence The meaning of o shifts from contraries to subcontraries O must be pragmatically interpreted in the context studied There are polyphonic structures in the bridging contexts

120



Salvador Pons Bordería Discourse genres and local contexts shape the final interpretation The existing paradigm of reformulatives favours the interpretation of o sea as a member of such paradigm.

Any of the above-mentioned factors alone suffices to explain the facts; in fact, any factor can be found systematically in all the examples analysed. The rise of o sea as a RM can therefore be best explained as a case of family resemblance, in Wittgenstein’s terms. In the following, all eight factors listed above are discussed in detail. From ser . . . ser to Ø . . . ser As (10) and Table 7.6 show, during the 13th–15th centuries, ser in o sea is frequently bound to a previous instance of the verb ‘to be’ in a correlative series (following RAE 2009: 31.3.q). In the 15th century, this tendency is overshadowed by the appearance of the (o) p o sea q structures, as Table 7.6 reflects. TABLE 7.6 Sea . . . sea vs Ø . . . sea in the 15th century 1401–1500

Total

o sea p o q o sea p o sea q sea p o sea q

10 8 29

o p o sea q p o sea q

12 42

37 54

Given that the correlative series induced an interpretation of p and q as exclusive members, the fall of the first member of that correlation will free the construction and will allow for a wider range of interpretations, among them the inclusive interpretation of o. Thus, syntax contributes to a semantic shift by liberating o sea from a first member. Absolute value of ser In the bridging contexts, ser as a full verb can always be interpreted under a non-copulative, absolute interpretation (15): (15)

Suplicareys de mi parte a Su Santidat que le plega, con su breue, mandar al dicho rector que no impida la ereccion del dicho monesterio e yglesia, [ . . . ] sin leuar derecho alguno a las dichas religiosas [ . . . ], pues ellas han de biuir en pobreza, con solas las limosnas, o sea tan poco, que no les sea molesto cumplirlo. (1495, Anon., Carta dirigida al obispo de Cartagena) [The rector of a church wants to prevent a monastery from being built nearby. A man writes to the Bishop of Cartagena to argue in favour of this new monastery] ‘I pray you ask the Holy Father to order the rector to not prevent the construction of said monastery and church [ . . . ] without jeopardizing the rights of the aforementioned nuns [ . . . ], because they have to live in poverty, with only charity, or be-SBJV, so little, that they should not be unwilling to respect [this order].’

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

121

Under this absolute interpretation of the verb ‘to be’, the sentence could be read as ‘or be [the rights of the nuns harmed] so little, that . . .’. The corpus reveals three alternative configurations for to be in the o sea constructions: first, auxiliary plus agreement in gender and number (16); second, copula plus attribute; agreement in number, with or without ellipsis of part of the attribute (17) and (18); third, main verb and conjunction elliptic in a that-clause: o sea [que no sea redimió] de . . . (19). (16)

Fasta que sea librada la contienda que es entre ellos sea por iuyzio o sea dado por quito el enplazado (1491, Anon., Siete Partidas) ‘Until the dispute they have is not solved in the court or be-SBJV the term removed’

(17)

E porque esto es verdad o sea firme e non venga en dubda . . . (1496, Anon., Carta de tregua y perdón) ‘And because this is true or be-SBJV established and not to be doubted . . .’

(18)

Y aun estando en la cama preso de hiebre, o sea de otra qualquier dolençia . . . (1455–60, Teresa de Cartagena, Arboleda de los enfermos) ‘Even in bed, wracked by fever, or be-SBJV [wracked] by any other ailment . . .’

(19)

Y porque no se redimió de muy más complida redención, o sea de los pecados y de las penas del infierno . . . (1487, Fray Hernando de Talarera, Católica impugnación del herético libelo maldito y descomulgado) ‘And because he was not redeemed of a clear redemption, or be-SBJV, [he was not redeemed from] the sins and the sorrows of hell . . .’

Scope over one word In the bridging contexts studied, it is not unusual to find sea having scope over only one word, which makes it quite difficult to reconstruct a proposition based on the ellipsis of previous constituents: (20)

Corriendo adelante la vía del río de la Plata hasta el Antártico, se ponen en la carta cient leguas desde el dicho Cabo Frío hasta la línia de la demarcación que se tiene con los portugueses, [ . . . ] La cual línia pasa (o sea isleta) como zona en un cabo o promontorio que llaman de Buen Abrigo [ . . . ] (1535, Fernández de Oviedo, Gonzalo, Historia General y natural de las Indias) ‘Running down the road from the Río de la Plata to the Antarctic, the map signals one hundred miles from the above-mentioned Cabo Frío until the frontier that we share with the Portuguese. This frontier passes (or be-SBJV an islet) as an area in a cape or headland which is called Buen Abrigo’

In (20), it is not possible to reconstruct a verb for the constituent in the brackets (*o sea pasa isleta). In turn, reconstruction of the verb is possible in (21): (21)

Pero fuérzame a hacerlo el dar respuesta, o sea satisfacción, a las calumnias (1595, Anon., Glosses) ‘But I feel compelled to do so in order to respond, or be-SBJV to reply, to the lies . . .’

122

Salvador Pons Bordería

Here the word under the scope of sea (‘satisfaction’) is linked to the verb dar as an idiom (dar respuesta/dar satisfacción). In fact, concordance with sea does not seem possible (*dar respuesta o sean satisfacciones). Through this interpretation, sea introduces a concession. The writer agrees not only that ‘respond’ is a suitable word in the state of affairs described, but that ‘satisfaction’ can also be successfully applied. Such value is close to the absolute use of ‘to be’ as an answer to a question, which can be found in other Romance languages as well: (22)

‘Entonces, ¿trato hecho?’ Sp. ‘Sea’/Fr. ‘Soit’ ‘Shall we make a deal, then?’ ‘So be it’

Coded and interpreted meaning of o In bridging contexts, the meaning of o is weakened, from an exclusive meaning (V) to an equative one (=), through the intermediate steps of inclusion (v) and subcontrariety. In order to establish this scale, both semantic meaning and contextual interpretation must be taken into account. Consider the scale ordering (11), (13), and (20) above. In (11), varon/muger are extensional contradictories (neither can be true and neither can be false); in (13), Tutulla/Filotida are contraries (i.e. it may be that neither name is correct, but if one of the names is right, then the other is wrong). In (20), however, (‘frontier/islet’), the alternates can be understood as pragmatic subcontraries (both can be true but both cannot be false). To understand this, the figures of speaker and writer must be taken into account: what ‘pragmatic subcontraries’ means is that, for the writer, línia ‘frontier’ and isleta ‘islet’ are the only alternatives available to understand what línia de demarcación ‘frontier’ means in that context. In this sense, neither word can be false. By contrast, for the reader it means that it does not matter if he chooses one or the other, because either will be adequate in the context. In this sense, either ‘frontier’ or ‘islet’ can be true. As subcontraries, they follow Horn’s test for suspenders (‘a frontier, moreover, an islet’). Finally, in (23), a clear reformulative example, the paraphrased and the paraphrase are considered identical: (23)

No menos enfadosa y cansada de la tautología es la perisología, o sea, superfluidad o prolijidad, vicio asimismo frecuente en el hablar. Ésta se puede cometer o en las palabras o en los sentimientos. (1729, Ignacio de Luzán, Arte de hablar, o sea, Retórica de las conversaciones) ‘Just as annoying and boring as tautology is perissology, or be-SBJV, superfluity or wordiness, a vice frequent in speech as well. Perissology can be commited either in words or in thoughts.’

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

123

What the examples above indicate is the weakening of the exclusive, disjunctive reading in favour of an inclusive reading that will lead, in the future, to an equative reading in the form of the scale: contradictory > contrary > subcontrary > equative. Polyphony In bridging contexts, polyphony, i.e. diversity of voices in the same utterance, is commonly found (Ducrot 1984). Polyphony can be explicit, as in (24)–(26): (24)

Dice este padre que la boca deste infierno es como una campana, [ . . . ] a la parte oriental, que es hacia la otra, o sea más igual e bajo, [ . . . ] quiere decir, que si a Oriente tiene trescientas brazas de hondo, como dice el fraile que las tiene, que son quinientas e más al Poniente. (1535–1557, Fernández de Oviedo, Gonzalo, Historia General y natural de las Indias) ‘This father says that the gate of this hell is like a bell, [ . . . ] the eastern part is [bent] towards the other, or be-SBJV. more even and short, [ . . . ] it means that if the eastern part is three hundred fathoms deep, as the father says it is, then the western part is five hundred and more’

(25)

Fue la hiedra [ . . . ] un mancebo que servía a Baco de danzante, como escribe Casio Dionisio, lib. ii, capít. 30 De la agricultura, o sea, Casiano Basso escolástico, el recogedor de este libro (1580, Fernando de Herrera, Comentario a Garcilaso) ‘Ivy was a lad who served Baco as a dancer, as Casio Dionisio writes (lib. Ii, chapter 30, De agricultura), or be-SBJV Casiano Basso scholastic, the compiler of this book’

(26)

cuando comienza a poder ser visto ya formado el hígado y corazón y celebro, están tan juntos que se tocan [ . . . ] para que quepan en el cuerpo tamaño como el de una hormiga grande, que le da Aristóteles al infundir del alma, o sea, del tamaño de una abeja pequeña, como tiene Hipócrates. (1589, Juan de Pineda, Diálogos familiares de la agricultura cristiana) ‘When liver, heart and brains are formed and can be seen, they are so close together that they touch each other [ . . . ], so that they can all fit into a body as small as a big ant, as Aristotle says, or be-SBJV, as a small bee, as Hippocrates says’

But reference to a plurality of voices can be left implicit as well: (27)

Y aunque todo esto no haya tocado más que al reino de Aragón, [ . . . ] Zaragoza ella sólo haya padecido; con todo eso, las demás [ . . . ], temiendo ahora por ejemplo del vecino los mismos daños y privación, o sea disminución de sus fueros y exenciones, no dudo sino que ayudarán a cualquiera sombra de revueltas. (1598, Baltasar Álamos de Barrientos, Discurso político al rey Felipe III)

124

Salvador Pons Bordería ‘Though the aforementioned things have affected only the kingdom of Aragón [ . . . ] only Zaragoza has suffered them; therefore, the other [towns] [ . . . ], fearing now the same damage and shortages, or be-SBJV diminishing of their rights and exemptions, will undoubtedly nurture any inkling of a riot’

In all cases, o sea occurs in contexts where two different enunciators (in Ducrot’s terms) hold opinions which a locutor evaluates. The explicit reference to the voices behind the opinions compared is semanticized in PDS o sea. Discourse genres There is a striking similarity in the contexts where the bridging contexts appear: glosses (21) and translations (18), but also technical prose (24) and debates (27). These genres share one feature: in all of them, there is a need for accuracy. Hence, linguistic means will be used to guarantee that there are no interpretations other than the one the writer intends. It is not by chance that other RMs, such as esto es, a saber, çò és, or videlicet are systematically found in the same contexts (Pons Bordería 2008). What data show is that the type of text in which o sea is used influences this grammaticalization process. This is evidence in favour of a positive answer to the question raised by Traugott (2010b) regarding the influence of ‘conventions of interaction in specific discourse contexts’, but this will not be developed here in detail. Paradigmatic pressure During the transition period which will lead o sea to express reformulation, there is already a paradigm of RMs active in Spanish (Casado 1996; Herrero 2006; Pérez-Salazar Resano 2006; Pons Bordería 2006; 2008). In this paradigm are esto es and a saber, together with other markers (such as çò és or esto es a saber). As o sea evolved to express equivalency in the same contexts and discourse genres as those in which RMs were actively operating, there is greater pressure to assimilate its meaning to the already-existing paradigm, forcing in this way a reformulative reading of o sea in ambiguous contexts on the basis of analogy. This view of paradigms, which stems from European structural linguistics and from the Prague School, has been disregarded in grammaticalization studies. However, Estellés (2011) has proved not only the existence of paradigmatic pressure but also its leading role in semantic changes. In the case of DMs, the impact of paradigms can be even greater than the semantic core meaning of the marker. Writer and reader roles Reference to writer and reader was made above in this section when interpreting ambiguous examples. In fact, in most cases, the alternates in the o sea construction are contextual, i.e. their synonymy is not coded, but suggested by the writer, who instructs the reader to choose among the alternates he proposes, in the belief that all alternates are contextually appropriate. As for the reader, such election becomes irrelevant because all choices lead to the same conclusion. This is why, in example (20) above, ‘islet’ and ‘frontier’ were proposed as equally

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

125

valid alternates of their hyperonym ‘frontier’, a hyponym–hyperonym relationship which can be established only on pragmatic grounds. To sum up, the grammaticalization process which led to the DM o sea involved a syntactic simplification of the original o sea structures, in which a first member was required, into the PDS structure p o sea q, in which o and sea do not correlate with any previous member. This expanded the semantic boundaries of o, which could evolve from an exclusive to an inclusive meaning in this particular construction. A small number of the total occurrences of o sea evolved from expressing opposition (v) to expressing equivalency (=). For this to occur, o sea had to be present in specific discourse genres, such as glosses and translations, where different voices are interpreted as bearing the same meaning. In such contexts, there were at the time operations of reformulation because an emerging paradigm of RMs was already in place. Analogy in these contexts operated as an attracting force which fostered the reinterpretation of o and sea as a single unit. Given that their meaning had been weakened, and sea having no clear scope, their binding was a matter of proximity, favoured by metonymy. In brief, in the 18th century o sea can be configured in three ways: (a) as a free construction o + sea, o being disjunctive and sea a full verb (16); (b) as a free construction, being o equative and sea a full verb (20); and (c) as a grammaticalized construction, o and sea bound together and conveying an equative meaning (23). This latter meaning is active only in very specific contexts, where previously grammaticalized reformulation markers operated. In conclusion, the o sea-structure is layered, as predicted by grammaticalization studies (Hopper 1991). 7.4.2 Towards Present-day Spanish o sea 7.4.2.1 The rise of conclusive meanings In section 7.2, PDS o sea was described as having five different meanings. So far, only the basic, paraphrastic meaning has been identified in this chapter. The first occurrence of conclusive o sea is found in the early 17th century: (28)

Y volviendo a nuestro texto, digo que no porque Ecechiel diga ‘eran quitados los vasos de tu adorno’, se ha de entender que el adorno y hermosura que salió de las hijas de Sión fueron los vasos. Las hijas de Sión se entienden, a mi opinión y a la común, ‘todos los de Sión’; o sea que se entienda Jerusalén la ciudad en part[ic]ular, por estar como amparada y favorecida del Alcázar de Sión. Y así se entiende que le fue quitada la fuerza, el ánimo, el brío, la libertad y el sustento, que son las cosas hermosas de una ciudad. (1613, Francisco de Quevedo y Villegas, Lágrimas de Jeremías castellanas) ‘And returning to our text, I affirm that when Ezekiel says “you were deprived from the vessels of your adornment”, one must not understand that the beauty and the adornment arising from the daughters of Sion were vessels. The daughters of Sion must be understood, in my opinion and in everyone

126

Salvador Pons Bordería else’s, as “all those from Sion”; or be-SBJV, it must be understood as the city of Jerusalem, because it is aided and protected by the fortress of Sion. Hence, one has to understand that it was deprived of strength, spirit, energy, freedom and support, which are the most beautiful things in a city.’

Once again, o sea is found in the context of a gloss. This time, however, o sea appears under the form o sea que, the same structure and value exhibited by o sea in PDS. The polyphonic structure in this example prompts both author and reader to extract the same conclusion from the data presented above, thus suggesting that the conclusive value appeared around the same time as did the paraphrastic value. Example (28) constitutes then indirect evidence of the grammaticalization of o sea around the beginning of the 17th century. 7.4.2.2 Non-paraphrastic, reformulative o sea Example (29) is the first instance of non-paraphrastic reformulation found in the corpus: (29)

Y en ese convento nos regalaron diversas veces con tortillas de huevos [ . . . ]. Un día, o sea una tarde, salimos de dicho convento de San Diego, adonde habíamos merendado muy bien de dichas tortillas (1705, Raimundo de Lantery, Memorias) ‘In that convent we were given egg omelettes several times [ . . . ] One day, or be-SBJV one afternoon, we went out of this convent of San Diego, where we had a tasty snack of such omelettes’

In (29), o sea links two words which can be interpreted as either hyperonym > hyponym (day > afternoon), or exclusive co-hyponyms (morning V afternoon). A paraphrastic reading is not possible in either case. Therefore, the whole paragraph must be interpreted either ‘one day, specifically one afternoon’ or ‘one day, in fact one afternoon’.4 No matter the interpretation chosen, both fall into the range of nonparaphrastic reformulation (Garcés Gómez 2008). Based on this particular evolution, we could hypothesize that, historically, nonreformulative values arise from reformulative ones, thus suggesting a cline like the one below, which should be the focus of further study: p V q > p v q > p (subcontrary) q > p = q (paraphrastic reformulative) > p 6¼ q (nonparaphrastic reformulative) 7.4.2.3 The 19th and 20th centuries: the end of the process By the mid-1700s, three of the five contemporary values of o sea had already been created: paraphrastic, nonparaphrastic, and conclusive. During the 19th and 20th centuries, three more changes are seen: the formal reduction of o sea with conclusive meaning; the use of o sea in 4 Merendar means ‘to have an afternoon snack’ both at the time and in contemporary Spanish. It is not possible, hence, to interpret día as ‘time span of twenty-four hours’.

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

127

hetero-reformulative contexts; and finally, the not-yet-documented development of modal values. Formal reduction in conclusive o sea As for the first change, the p o sea q conclusive construction will progressively drop its p and q constituents. The first step documented in this evolution is the loss of the q constituent at the beginning of the 19th century: (30)

Timoteo. Según parece es de moda esa labor o tarea entre las damas, o sea . . . Pero, di, ¿no te incomoda esa mano de mortero en la tuya delicada? (1831, Manuel Bretón de los Herreros, Marcela, o ¿cuál de los tres?) ‘Timoteo. It seems it is fashionable This work or task Among the ladies, or be-SBJV . . . But, tell me, does it not bother you This calloused hand In your delicate one?’

This loss is not complete, because the q constituent is replaced by suspended dots, which instruct the reader to recover a conclusion left implicit by the writer (Figueras 2001). However, the shift p o sea q > p o sea . . . is a major step in detaching o sea from its right context, given that the right context necessary for interpreting o sea, though still present through prosody, is no longer explicit and must be inferentially recovered. One century later, o sea is documented as p. O sea: q, also with a conclusive value: (31)

Y para mí no habrá más descanso dominical que el de un lectorado en el extranjero. [ . . . ] Una vez descartado Cambridge, quedaría descartada toda Europa [ . . . ] En resolución: hay que pensar en América. O sea: tengo que pedirte a ti, precisamente a ti, la ayuda definitiva. (1938, Jorge Guillén, private letter) ‘And for me there will be no other Sunday rest than an assistantship abroad [ . . . ] Once Cambridge discarded, all Europe is also discarded [ . . . ]. In short, I must think about America. Or be-SBJV: I have to ask you, and only you, for definite help’.

Interestingly, que is replaced here by a colon. If a colon conveys a cause-conclusion relationship between p and q (RAE 2010: 361), then o sea alone ensures that the relationship between p and q is one of conclusion; orthography simply highlights this relationship. Also remarkably, o sea is written in capital letters in (31), something not

128

Salvador Pons Bordería

documented at all until the 20th century. Given that periods are said to differentiate distinct, complete ideas from one other (RAE 2010: 293), then the period between p and o sea q means that, for the writer, the link between p and q has weakened. The rise of hetero-reformulations So far, all examples of reformulation in the corpus have been instances of self-reformulation, i.e. a relationship in which a single speaker (although not the same point of view, following Ducrot 1984) produces the old (p) and the new (q) formulations. But there is still another instance of reformulation, in which the p member is paraphrased by a second speaker. Such relationship is called hetero-reformulation and is typical of dialogic/dialogual contexts (Roulet 1987; Rossari 1994). Only at the beginning of the 20th century is this construction found in the corpus: (32) ‘Pues ¿cómo salió usté de sí mismo?’ ‘Salí de mí mismo para ponerme en el caso de Herminia. Dejé de existir por propia cuenta, para que ella, sólo ella, existiera dentro de mí’ ‘O sea, que lejos de salir de usté mismo, se padeció, se sumió, con los ojos cerrados, en lo más profundo y vivo de usté mismo, en su pasión, en su irracionalidad, en su razón de ser, en el amor a Herminia’ (1926, Ramón Pérez de Ayala, El curandero de su honra) ‘ “Well, how did you get out of yourself?” ’ ‘ “I got out of myself to put myself in Herminia’s shoes. I ended my own existence so that she and only she existed inside me” ’ ‘“Or be-SBJV, instead of getting out of yourself, you suffered, you dived in with your eyes shut into the deepest, liveliest part of yourself, into your passion, into your irrationality, into your raison d’être, into your love for Herminia”’ The presence of hetero-reformulations in the corpus as late as the 20th century does not necessarily mean that this feature did not exist before, only that it is not reflected in written texts (López Serena 2007). This issue not only raises interesting questions regarding the representativity of the corpus for the historical study of conversation-oriented discourse operations and DMs, but also questions the extent to which the data reflect language-internal changes. Specifically, we may ask if these are due to changes in textual models, in rhetorics, or in the discourse traditions (Kabatek 2008) at a given time. Development of modal values In PDS, o sea has two kinds of modal value: hedging and stressing, with a complementary distribution: hedging values in sentence-initial position (33), and stressing values in sentence-final position (34) (Briz Gómez 2001). (33)

o sea/ no sé (Briz Gómez 2001: 308) ‘Or be-SBJV/ I don’t know’

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea (34)

129

PERO BUENO—PERO/PERO ES QUE ALGO TE DEBE PASAR ¿NO? o sea (Briz Gómez 2001: 309) ‘BUT OK—BUT/BUT SOMETHING SHOULD HAPPEN TO YOU/ SHOULDN’T IT? Or be-SBJV’

Together with these values, a formulative, planning-related value is frequently found in PDS: (35)

con- o s(e)a con- dos cervezas- con dos tercios ya no puedes conducir ‘with- or be-SBJV with- two beers- with just two half-pints you can’t drive’

These values seem to have been present around 1950. In 1997, the Spanish linguist Emilio Lorenzo informally described what he thought was a semantic evolution in o sea: En los años cuarenta estaba claro para mí lo que dicen todavía los diccionarios [se refiere a los usos reformulativos] [ . . . ] pero en los niños de la posguerra, los de examen de ingreso, se estaba extendiendo un uso incipiente, el de un «o sea» [ . . . ] enfático que no aclaraba ni explicaba nada, porque servía de comienzo absoluto de la intervención del ingresante: «A ver, niño, dinos los ríos de España. – O sea, los ríos de España son [ . . . ]» Luego, en los años cincuenta [ . . . ]afectaba [ . . . ] a los alumnos de Facultad, [ . . . ] a defensores de tesis y tesinas, a los opositores de cátedras de Instituto y de Universidad [ . . . ] Algunos escritores [ . . . ] extendieron el «vicio» a los segmentos terminales de la frase, con el valor aproximado del coloquial «Pues eso» o de «Eso es». ‘In the 1940s it was clear to me what dictionaries still say [about o sea—in reference to o sea and reformulative uses] but postwar children, primary school children, spread an incipient usage, consisting of an emphatic “o sea” which did not explain anything, because it was the absolute start of the discent’s intervention: “Boy, tell us about the rivers of Spain.—Or be-SBJV, the rivers of Spain are [ . . . ]”. Later, in the 1950s, [ . . . ] usage spread among [ . . . ] [college] freshmen and sophomores, [ . . . ], master and Ph.D candidates, applicants to full professor positions [ . . . ] Some writers [ . . . ] extended the “vice” to the final position of sentences, meaning approximately “period” or “That’s it”.’

Documenting the first modal uses in the corpus is difficult, especially because the number of occurrences increases exponentially in the 20th century (from 1012 in the 19th century to 11,274 in the 20th). It must be noted as well that such uses, closely associated to orality, were banned in formal registers (as revealed in the quotation from Emilio Lorenzo). Nevertheless, the first occurrence of a modal value dates back to 1979, and was found, not surprisingly, in a theatrical script. (36)

Uno: ¿Qué hay? Policía: Que la tía ésa, la colgada, ¿no lleva mucho tiempo ya? Otro: Es verdad, tío. La tía ésa, o sea, ¿no?, lleva un rato de tiempo colgada y no dice ni mu. O sea. Otro más: Dale un repaso tú. (1979, Alfonso Sastre, Análisis de un comando) ‘One: What’s wrong?

130

Salvador Pons Bordería Policeman: the girl there, the one hanging, hasn’t she been there a long time? Another: True, man. The girl there, or be-SBJV, hm?, she’s been hanging for a while now and hasn’t said a word. Or be-SBJV. Yet one more: Go and hit her.’

Besides indicating stress, (36) is also the earliest occurrence of independent o sea documented so far. In other words, this is an instance of o sea completely free of its right and left contexts. If Emilio Lorenzo is right and this is the last step in an evolution towards the development of modal and formulative values, then this would be an extraordinarily abrupt change (from 1940 to 1980 approximately). This can be better appreciated by analysing the data collected on the relationship between p and q as seen throughout the corpus, and noted in Table 7.7. TABLE 7.7 Syntactic liberation and semantic specialization in the o sea construction 1200–1300

1500–1700 1620

1831

1921

1938

1978

O sea p o p o sea q sea q o r (reformul p O o sea Sea p o sea ative) que q q or (conclusive) Sea p o sea q p o sea que . . . p o sea que q (conclusive) A: p B: o sea q (heteroreformulative) p. O sea: q (concl) p. o sea. (modal)

Considering the data in the last line in Table 7.7, together with Emilio Lorenzo’s observations, one may hypothesize that grammaticalization processes may not always need a long time span, and that, together with ‘classical’ changes, which proceed slowly by conventionalization of inferences (Traugott and Dasher 2002), there are also ‘catastrophic’ changes, in which time is not a leading factor (see Camus Bergareche 2006 for the rise of modern negation in Spanish, and Pons Bordería 2006 and 2008 for the grammaticalization of esto es as the result of a discourse tradition). Also of interest is the role of children, and specifically of children’s language, as a bearer of change: what Emilio Lorenzo reported is a linguistic usage initiated by children in conversations, which spread to the formal register as these children became adults: clearly this question should be the subject of further research.

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

131

7.5 Diachronic evolution of o sea in light of a discourse units theory Around the mid-18th century, the contemporary reformulative meanings of o sea are seen to be fully grammaticalized. This means that part of the original, free construction had been rebracketed, resulting in a fully grammaticalized DM: o [sea p] o [sea q] > p [o [sea q]] > p [o sea ] q. This change implies two syntactic processes: first, as stated above, a rebracketing. Second, a double, two-sided process: on the one hand, a process of syntactic liberation, which was needed for o sea to become a DM; on the other hand, a process of integration, or new complexity, which refers to the binding of a DM within larger units. Studies on grammaticalization have paid special attention to the first part of this evolutionary path (see Tabor and Traugott 1998 for the rise of C-command, or Company Company 2004 for the ‘syntactic deprival’ of grammaticalized constructions). By contrast, the second part of this evolutionary path seems to have gone unnoticed. The present section illustrates how the theory of discourse units described in section 7.3 can be successfully applied to explain the appearance of new values in Sp. o sea. When the historic evolution of o sea is summarized in terms of units and discourse positions (see Tables 7.8–7.14), an evolutionary path is created. This path started when o sea was incorporated into the system of DMs as a paraphrastic reformulative marker (p o sea q, in (23)). When acting as a prototypical reformulative marker, o sea appeared in initial position within a sub-act ([I, SA]). In paraphrastic reformulations (see Table 7.8), a first formulation is rephrased for the sake of clarity, as occurs in glosses. Being the second formulation an appendage to the first, one may consider it subordinate to the former. In other words, in cases of paraphrastic reformulation, o sea is part of a subordinate substantive sub-act (SSS), which, together with the directive act to which it is joined (DSS), builds a reformulation move. TABLE 7.8 O sea (1379–1753) Unit Position Initial

Sub-act DSS

SSS Paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1379–1753

In 1613, o sea first appears with a conclusive value (p o sea que q, in (28)). As conclusions are the directive move of an act, o sea, again in the inital position of a sub-act ([I, SA]), is now hosted within a DSS (see Table 7.9).

132

Salvador Pons Bordería TABLE 7.9 Development of conclusive values Unit Position

Sub-act DSS

SSS

Conclusion p o sea que q 1613

Paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1379–1753

Initial

The next step in the evolution of o sea is the development of non-paraphrastic values at the beginning of the 18th century, when o sea in [I, SA] is, again, part of a DSS (p o sea q, in (29); see Table 7.10): TABLE 7.10 The rise of non-paraphrastic values Unit

Sub-act

Position

DSS

Initial

Conclusion p o sea que q 1613

SSS

Paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1379–1753 Non-paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1705–43

One hundred years later, o sea gains greater autonomy from p and q, which leads to changes in structure. The first change can be observed in conclusion moves, where q does not have propositional content and is inferentially recovered through intonation, represented in texts via punctuation (p o sea . . . , in (30)). The second change occurs in paraphrastic moves, where p and q must be considered two different acts, as punctuation suggests (p. O sea: q, in (31)). Here o sea is hosted within an act, broadening its scope over a higher discourse unit (see Table 7.11):

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

133

TABLE 7.11 Syntactic liberation and increase in scope during the 19th century Unit

Sub-act

Position

DSS

Initial

Conclusion p o sea que q 1613 p o sea… 1831

Act SSS

Non-paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1705–43

Paraphrastic reformulation p. O sea q 1868 Paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1379–1753

In the 20th century o sea shifts from monologic to dialogic values (see Table 7.12), as noted in the first occurrences of o sea in hetero-reformulative contexts (Speaker A: p; Speaker B: o sea q, in (32)), i.e. in contexts where o sea fills in the initial slot of an intervention ([I, I]). TABLE 7.12 Acquisition of dialogic values in the 20th century Unit

Sub-act

Position

DSS

Initial

Conclusion p o sea que q 1613 p o sea… 1831

Nonparaphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1705–43

Act

Initiative

SSS

Paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1379–1753

Intervention

Paraphrastic reformulation P. O sea q 1868

Reactive Heteroreformulation A: p B: O sea q 1926

A: p B: O sea …q 1957

134

Salvador Pons Bordería

Data show that the saturation of the initial position occurs in a more or less ordered manner, from units with narrower scope to units with broader scope. Nonetheless, this is not the end of the path. In the last quarter of the 20th century, examples are found of o sea with modal values, either stressing or hedging, in initial—hedging—or in final—stressing—position (see Table 7.13).5 In the initial position of an act ([I, A]), o sea serves as a vehicle to express hedging (o sea p, in (33)). In the final position of an act ([F, A]), it is used to convey stress (p. O sea, in (34)). Although there is a gap between the data in written texts and the use of o sea in conversations, Emilio Lorenzo’s metalinguistic remarks lead us to believe that the difference between oral and written tokens is not relevant in this case. TABLE 7.13 The end of the road (I): development of modal values Unit Position Initial

Sub-act DSS Conclusion p o sea que q 1613 p o sea… 1831 Nonparaphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1705–43

Act SSS

Intervention Initiative

Paraphrastic reformulation P. O sea q 1868 Paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1379–1753 1379–1753

Hedging o sea, p.

Reactive Heteroreformulation A: p B: o sea q 1926

A: p B: o sea…q 1957

Medial Final

Stressing 1978 p. O sea.

Finally, some time in the 20th century, o sea develops a capacity to convey formulative functions, related to the planning of discourse (p o sea p0 , in example 35). This new function fulfils the medial position in acts ([M, A]) (see Table 7.14). According to Emilo Lorenzo’s metalinguistic remarks, this would seem to have happened between 1940 and 1970 (though this should be more thoroughly investigated to confirm). 5 Note that Val.Es.Co. notions of initial and final position are broader than those of left- and rightperiphery, and thus provide a comprehensive framework within which to explain historical changes.

Paths of grammaticalization in Spanish o sea

135

TABLE 7.14 The end of the road (II): development of formulative values Unit Position Initial

Sub-act DSS Conclusion p o sea que q 1613 p o sea… 1831 Nonparaphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1705–43

Medial

Final

Act SSS

Intervention Initiative

Paraphrastic reformulation P. O sea q 1868 Paraphrastic reformulation p o sea q 1379–1753

Hedging o sea, p.

Reactive Heteroreformulation A: p B: o sea q 1926

A: p B: o sea…q 1957

Formulation p o sea p’ (1940-1970?) Stressing p. O sea. (1978)

7.6 Conclusions From the analysis of the Spanish RM o sea two conclusions can be drawn. First, there seems to be a diachronic path from self-reformulation (either paraphrastic or non-paraphrastic) to hetero-reformulation, and from equivalency to correction. The data analysed in this chapter also suggest that RMs begin by expressing equivalency in written, formal texts linked to very specific discourse genres (e.g. legal) and sometimes to very specific discourse traditions (such as the Carolingian Renaissance, as studied in Pons Bordería 2008). From that initial point, RMs can evolve into other discourse relations that may come to include correction, though this is not always the case. Once the range of paraphrastic values on the scale equation–correction is fulfilled, a paraphrastic marker is able to convey hetero-reformulation relationships, so the following cline is proposed: self-reformulation > hetero-reformulation. Second, a theory of discourse units is useful in order to study cases like that presented here. Such a theory (a) provides a proper account of discourse positions and (b) extends this account to dialogic positions as well.

136

Salvador Pons Bordería

Discourse positions are captured far better when a non-grammatical, discoursebased theory is applied, especially if the DMs analysed are prototypically used in oral genres. In fact, and comparing this to the left periphery–right periphery question (see Traugott 2012), the Val.Es.Co. theory allows research to move beyond the scope of sentences, as in the case of reformulations, which are discourse operations binding together words, phrases, sentences, or even paragraphs. Further, such a theory provides researchers with access to a wider range of positions (not only left and right, but also medial and independent). And, as positions are relative to units, the number of logically feasible alternatives in the model multiplies (see section 7.3). Given that most DMs have developed dialogic uses, any theory limited to monologic or to sentence-based positions will not be able properly to account for their diachronic evolution. Recent interest in dialogue as a locus of change within grammaticalization studies (Traugott 2010b) could benefit from a theory of discourse positions, which is especially suitable for analysing dialogic exchanges. And, from the point of view of discourse operations, limitation of analyses to monologic, sentencebased occurrences amounts to sheer oversimplification. The study of reformulation is certainly a case in point.

Part II Adverbs as Discourse Markers

8 Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: The medieval particle ja between Latin iam and Modern French déjà M A J - B R I T T M OS E G A A RD HA NS E N

8.1 Introduction This chapter proposes an analysis of the Medieval French particle ja (< Latin iam ‘now, as of this moment’).* The analysis is based on a total of 418 occurrences of ja in non-negative contexts, and 574 occurrences in negative contexts, stemming from the electronic databases Base de français médiéval (http://bfm.ens-lyon.fr/) and Bases du moyen français (http://www.atilf.fr/dmf/), and covering the 11th–16th centuries. Ja is a very frequently occurring particle in Medieval French texts, but it disappears in the course of Renaissance French, surviving in Modern French only as an etymological component of the adverbs déjà ‘already’ (< OF des ja ‘already’, lit. ‘from that moment on’), jamais ‘(n)ever’ (< OF ja mais, ‘(n)evermore’, lit. ‘as of this moment more’), and the by now archaic jadis ‘in olden days’ (< OF ja a dis, lit. ‘there are already days’). Like Latin iam (Kroon and Risselada 2002) and its closest contemporary equivalent déjà (Hansen 2008), Old French ja is highly polyfunctional, showing a total of nine different readings in my data. However, while its range of functions overlap with those of both its etymological source and its descendant, the three are, crucially, not * I’d like to thank Daron Burrows (Oxford) for helpful discussion of some of the Old French examples adduced in this chapter. I also wish to thank Eva-Maria Remberger and Frank Savelsberg, organizers of the section entitled Zwischen Satz und Text: Diskursmarker und Informationsstruktur in romanischer Diachronie at the XXXII Romanistentag (Berlin, 25–25 September 2011), for inviting me to give the keynote talk where this study was first presented. Finally, the greatest thanks are due to Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli for all the work they have done, not just in organizing the symposium on Segnali discorsivi tra latino e lingue romanze (Bergamo, 4–5 October 2011), but also in editing the present volume.

140

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

identical. Moreover, it appears that in neither Old nor Modern French was the full range of functions present from the outset: rather, they developed gradually, in both cases from a temporal/aspectual source meaning towards pragmatic meanings involving, in the case of ja, counterexpectation and dialogicity. Thus, I will argue that, when considered together, the evolution of the individual particles, iam, ja, and déjà suggests the existence of cross-linguistic cycles of pragmaticalization not unlike the cycles of grammaticalization that are well documented in areas such as negation and agreement (e.g. van Gelderen 2011; Jespersen 1917).

8.2 Functions of Latin iam and Modern French déjà 8.2.1 Latin iam Although remarks on the uses of the particle can be found elsewhere (e.g. Rosén 2009), Kroon and Risselada (2002) is to my knowledge the only in-depth study of the functions of ja’s etymological source, Latin iam. These authors explicitly leave out of consideration uses of iam with negation, as well as a use in which the particle marks the beginning of narrative episodes. Those aside, they posit a total of six uses of iam, which they suggest can be accounted for by the presence or absence of three semantic/pragmatic features, namely phasality, polarity, and (counter-presuppositional) focality, as shown in Table 8.1 (adapted from Kroon and Risselada 2002: 69). They adduce the following examples (their 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9): (1)

Purely temporal: eius libertum Apollonium iam tum equidem, cum ille viveret, et magni faciebam et probabam; ‘already then, when he was still alive, I had a great regard and liking for his freedman Apollonius’

(2)

Scalar temporal: sex menses iam hic nemo habitat ‘for six months already, nobody has lived here’

TABLE 8.1 Uses of Latin iam

Purely temporal Scalar (temporal and non-temporal) Purely polar Purely focal (scoping constituents or relations)

Polarity

Phasality

Focality

+

+ +

+ + + +

+

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

141

(3)

Scalar non-temporal: non cum senatu modo sed iam cum dis immortalibus C. Flaminium bellum gerere ‘that Gaius Flaminius was waging war not only with the Senate, but with no less than the immortal Gods’

(4)

Purely polar: nunc, si iam res placet, agenda tamen viam non video ‘as it is, even if I were to approve of this, I see no way of going to work’

(5)

Purely focal, scoping a constituent:1 Iam id porro utrum libentes an invite dabant? ‘As to this, furthermore, did they pay that willingly or reluctantly?’

(6)

Purely focal, scoping a relation: de quibus iam dicendi locus erit cum de senioribus pauca dixero ‘of whom I shall find a place to speak once I have said a little about their seniors’

Kroon and Risselada (2002: 69) find no evidence in their data that any of the different functions they distinguish is the original, or ‘basic’, use of the particle, from which the remaining functions may have evolved diachronically. In negative clauses (which are, as already mentioned, not taken into account by Kroon and Risselada’s analysis), Latin iam is generally agreed to have two possible interpretations, depending on the relative scope of the particle and the negative marker non. When the former has scope over the latter, i.e. [iam [non]], the interpretation is discontinuative, corresponding to English ‘no longer/not anymore’, as in (7). Where the negative marker has scope over the particle, on the other hand, i.e. [non [iam]], the interpretation is that of a continuative negative, corresponding to English ‘not yet’, as in (8) (cf. van der Auwera 1998). (7)

. . . quem odisse iam non potestis (Cicero, Pro A. Cluentio, 10.29) ‘whom you can no longer hate’

(8)

admirabatur, non iam supplicium de eo sumptum esse ‘he was surprised that his execution had not yet been carried out’

As both these uses involve polarity, phasality, and counter-presuppositional focality, it is not clear whether Kroon and Risselada (2002) would want to distinguish them from what they call the ‘purely temporal’ use of iam in positive-polarity contexts, and if so, how that might be done in the context of their model.

1 Rosén (2009: 359f.) questions the adequacy of this category, arguing that in the examples offered by Kroon and Risselada (2002) iam is better analysed as a modal particle (see also (30) in this chapter).

142

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

8.2.2 Modern French déjà With respect to ja’s closest descendant, Modern French déjà, Hansen (2008) distinguishes ten contemporary uses of that particle, eight of which are considered to be actual polysemies, while the remaining two (the temporal focus particle and the categorizing use) are argued to be mere contextual variants of other uses (cf. the discussion in section 8.5 below). Hansen does find evidence that the network of uses shown in Fig. 8.1 (from Hansen 2008: 225), represents extensions from a diachronically prior, ‘basic’ temporal/aspectual sense of déjà, referred to as the phasal use of the marker. The ten uses can be exemplified as follows: (9)

Phasal use: Luc dormait déjà quand je suis rentrée. ‘Luc was already sleeping when I came home.’

On Hansen’s (2008: 142f.) analysis, this basic use of déjà conveys to the addressee that the state-of-affairs escoped by the particle has begun prior to topic time (TT), i.e. the temporal interval with respect to which the main claim of the utterance is made (cf. Klein 1992). This state of affairs e is assumed to still hold at TT. Phasal déjà further conveys a weak presupposition to the effect that a change of state ¬e > e may have taken place, and it conventionally implicates that ¬e might still have been actual at TT. The particle is inchoative in meaning, and retrospective in the sense that it marks the transition point between ¬e and e as having taken place in the past with respect to TT. Crucially, phasal déjà thus incorporates an element of scalarity via the idea of temporal development. (10)

Temporal focus particle: Il a appelé cinq fois déjà. ‘He’s phoned five times already.’ Interrogative marker

Temporal FP

Déjà que

Phasal sense

Iterative sense

Thematic DM

Scalar sense

Non-temporal FP

Imperative marker

Categorizing use

Figure 8.1 Network of uses of Modern French déjà

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

143

(11)

Iterative use: (waiting in line for passport control at Tokyo airport) Avez-vous déjà visité le Japon? ‘Have you been to Japan before?’

(12)

Scalar use: Max ne va probablement pas faire des études universitaires : pour lui, avoir décroché son bac, ce n’est déjà pas mal du tout. ‘Max will probably not go to university: in his case, graduating from high school is quite an achievement in itself.’

(13)

Non-temporal focus particle: Frédéric aime tellement le whisky que, déjà à vue d’œil, notre stock baisse. ‘Frédéric likes whisky so much that our stock is dwindling before our very eyes.’

(14)

Categorizing use: Canonbie, c’est déjà l’Écosse. ‘Canonbie is already in Scotland.’

(15)

Thematic discourse marker: Je pense que Sylvie est de loin la meilleure candidate : déjà, son CV est excellent, et puis, elle présente extrêmement bien. ‘I think Sylvie is by far the best candidate: for one thing, her CV is excellent, and moreover, she presents herself extremely well.’

(16)

Conjunctional use (déja que): Je n’aime pas Max : déjà qu’il fume comme un pompier, mais en plus il est agressif. ‘I don’t like Max: not only does he smoke like a chimney, but he’s also aggressive.’

(17)

Imperative marker Montre-moi déjà ce que tu sais faire! ‘Just show me what you can do!’

(18)

Interrogative marker C’était où, déjà, le restaurant que tu avais aimé? ‘I forget, where was the restaurant that you liked?’

Unlike iam and Old French ja, Modern French déjà only very rarely occurs in negative contexts. While Hansen (2008: 96f.) shows that déjà is not incompatible with negation, there can be no doubt that the marker is very strongly associated with positive polarity contexts. As shown by the French translations of (7) and (8), seen in

144

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

(19) and (20) below, the closest Modern French equivalents of Latin iam non and non iam thus involve the two etymologically unrelated particles (ne . . . )plus and (ne . . . pas) encore, respectively: (19)

. . . que vous ne pouvez plus haïr. ‘. . . that you cannot hate any more’

(20)

Il était surpris que son exécution n’avait pas encore été effectuée. ‘He was surprised that his execution had not yet been carried out.’

As the above examples show, however, there is—in positive contexts at least— significant partial overlap between the functions of iam and those of déjà: Kroon and Risselada’s (2002) ‘purely temporal’ use of iam in (1) corresponds to Hansen’s ‘phasal’ use of déjà in (9), the ‘scalar temporal’ use of iam in (2) appears identical to the ‘temporal focus particle’ use of déjà in (10), while the ‘scalar non-temporal’ use of the Latin particle in (3) corresponds to the ‘scalar’ use of its French descendant exemplified in (12). It is conceivable, further, that the ‘purely focal, constituentscoping’ use of iam in (5) may in fact be similar to the use of déjà as a ‘non-temporal focus particle’ seen in (13); but Kroon and Risselada (2002) do not provide sufficient context for the example in (5) to allow that to be determined. These correspondences are set out in Table 8.2. TABLE 8.2 Corresponding functions of Latin iam and Modern French déjà Kroon and Risselada (2002): Functions of iam

Hansen (2008): Functions of déjà

Purely temporal Scalar temporal Scalar non-temporal Purely focal constituent-scoping

Phasal Temporal focus particle Scalar Non-temporal focus particle

The first three of these functions seem, as we will see in greater detail below, to be shared by Medieval French ja, although the scalar (non-temporal) use is quite rare in my data. In addition, the latter has certain functions which it shares with iam, but not with déjà, and some which it shares with neither.

8.3 Data and methodology The analysis of Medieval French ja is based on data from different sources. An exhaustive analysis of the examples occurring in the following five Old and Early Middle French texts was carried out: 

La chanson de Roland (c.1090): 25 examples in non-negative contexts, and 38 in negative contexts.

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja    

145

Li coronemenz Looïs (c.1130): 24 examples in non-negative contexts, and 29 in negative contexts. La queste del Saint Graal (c.1220): 65 examples in non-negative contexts, and 83 in negative contexts. La mort le roi Artu (1230): 34 examples in non-negative examples, and 103 in negative contexts. Jean de Joinville, La vie de Saint Louis (1310): 16 examples in non-negative contexts, and 49 in negative contexts.

Occurrences of ja in these works were found using the Base de français médiéval CD-ROM Concordance (Prévost, Heiden, and Guillot 2000). In addition, I made use of the electronic database Base de français medieval (BFM), which contains a total of twenty-six texts (approx. 1,500,000 words), dating from the 9th to the 15th centuries, nineteen of which represent Old French (i.e. pre-14th century). The search function being case-sensitive, two individual searches were carried out, extracting tokens of ja both with and without a capital ‘J’. From each text, the first ten examples of both capitalized and non-capitalized ja in both nonnegative (positive and affective) and negative contexts were analysed. As not all the texts contained as many as ten examples of ja in each of the four conditions, a total of 172 examples of ja in non-negative contexts and a total of 239 examples in negative contexts were culled from this database.2 Finally, data from Renaissance French were obtained from a second electronic database, Bases du moyen français (BMF). This database consists of a total of 242 texts (more than 6 million words) from the Middle/Renaissance French period, 1350–1600. However, data were only extracted from fifteen texts representing 16thcentury French. As with the BFM data, from each individual text, the first ten examples of ja in both non-negative and negative contexts were analysed, yielding a total of 77 examples in non-negative contexts and 33 in negative contexts. I systematically eliminated tokens of ja followed by the adverb mais, as Hansen (2012) had shown that ja mais/jamais was lexicalized as a negative quantifier at a very early stage, and subsequently evolved independently of ja. It must therefore be considered a separate lexical item. The analysis is thus based on a total of 418 occurrences of ja in non-negative contexts, and 574 occurrences in negative contexts. Table 8.3 shows the figures broken down by century. It is important to note that, given the uneven representation of data from different centuries within the databases and, more importantly, the differences in sampling methods between the electronic corpus data and the concordance data, these figures

2 La queste del Saint Graal and La mort le roi Artu are also represented in the BFM. BFM occurrences of ja in these two texts have therefore been left out of the BFM text counts.

146

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

TABLE 8.3 Tokens of ja in positive vs negative contexts Century

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

Negative contexts Non-negative contexts

43 26

66 31

279 178

95 51

58 50

33 77

can in no way form the basis for a statistical analysis. Nonetheless, they do suggest that a frequency reversal took place between negative and non-negative uses of ja towards the end of the Medieval period. This will be discussed further below. The non-negative contexts include so-called ‘affective’ or ‘weak negative polarity’ contexts, such as conditionals, indirect interrogatives, and comparatives, which do not contain an actual negative marker, but where ja sometimes functions as a negative-polarity element with the meaning ‘ever’. This use is semantically closer to the uses of ja in negative contexts than to its uses in positive ones. In the analysis that follows, a distinction will therefore be made between positive-polarity and negativepolarity contexts, the latter comprising both actual negative, and affective contexts.

8.4 Functions of Medieval French ja A total of eleven functions of Medieval French ja were identified, eight of which are found in positive-polarity contexts and three in negative-polarity contexts. The question whether all of these functions constitute actual polysemies of the marker will be discussed in section 8.5. 8.4.1 Ja in positive-polarity contexts In positive-polarity contexts, ja most commonly functions as a temporal/aspectual particle. It typically has present-time reference, but is also found with both past- and future-time reference, as illustrated in (21)–(24). These uses are all shared by Latin iam, while only the phasal meaning in (22) is possible with Modern French déjà. (21)

‘Dame, fait il, ja m’en vois gié Comme li vostre chevaliers. (Escoufle, p. 49, v. 1460: BFM, 1200–02) ‘Lady, he said, now I depart as your knight.’

(22) ‘Sire, melement est, li rois Richars est arrivez a Baione atout granz genz, et sachiez qu’il vous a ja fait grant domage’ (Ménéstrel de Reims, p. 16v: BFM, 1260) ‘Sire, there’s trouble, King Richard has arrived in Bayonne with a great army, and you should know that he has already done you great damage’

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

147

(23)

Eist de la nef e vint andreit a Rome; Vait par les rues dunt il ja bien fut cointe (Alexis, p. 103, v. 212: BFM, c.1050) ‘He disembarks from the ship and comes directly to Rome; he walks along the street with which he was once well-acquainted’

(24)

Il li escrie: ‘Retorne, chevaliers, O ja morras a lei de paltoniers.’ (Looïs, vv. 2343–4, c.1130) ‘He calls to him, “Turn back, knight, or you will soon die a scoundrel’s death.” ’

As seen in (25), particularly in present- and past-time contexts, the particle is frequently ambiguous between a purely temporal, non-presuppositional meaning ‘(as of/from) now/then (on)’ (cf. (21)) and a phasal, presuppositional meaning ‘already’ (cf. (22)): (25)

Li forcibles reis de France A li ad fait ja alïance. (Edouard le Confesseur, v. 885: BFM, c.1245) ‘The powerful king of France has now/already made an alliance with him.’

A closely related function of ja is as a focus particle, with temporal or nontemporal, scalar meaning, as in (26) and (27). Both of these uses are shared by Latin iam and Modern French déjà; the non-temporal scalar meaning appears, however, to be at best sporadic in all three languages. (26)

Sire, en tel maniere con je vous cont, empris je cest pont a garder, que je ai ja gardé III mois entiers. (Tristan en prose, p. 78: BFM, 13th c., after 1240) ‘My Lord, in the way that I’m telling you, I undertook to guard this bridge, which I have already guarded for three whole months.’

(27)

Et ciertes se il estoit bien voirs, si le creroient ja moult envis li preudomme de cest païs. (Merlin suite litt., p. 9: BFM, c.1230–35). ‘And certainly if that were really true, then the brave men of this country would believe it very reluctantly indeed.’

Finally, the particle has two discourse-oriented uses. In the first of these, ja functions as an assertive discourse particle, marking affirmation, as in (28). Possibly, assertive ja could also be used to request confirmation, in contexts like that in (29). The few examples in my database are, however, ambiguous between an assertive and a temporal interpretation. (28)

‘Sire cumpain, faites le vos de gred? / Ja est ço Rollant, ki tant vos soelt amer! (Roland, vv. 2000–2001, c.1060) ‘My noble friend, do you do it on purpose? In truth, it is Roland, who has always loved you!’

148 (29)

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen Sire, fet messire Gauvains, volentiers; vos souviendroit il ja de la bele damoisele dont je vos parloie avant-hier (Artu, 70–1230) ‘Sire, says Sir Gawain, with pleasure; might you indeed/now recall the beautiful maiden that I told you about the day before yesterday’

Modern French déjà has no equivalent of this use of ja. However, although Kroon and Risselada’s (2002) example in (4) does not bring this out clearly, their analysis of what they call the ‘purely polar’ use of Latin iam strongly suggests that it is comparable. In any case, uses of iam that are very similar to the affirmative use of ja are attested, as seen in (30): (30)

potuit esse innocens Falcula. iam ergo aliquis Oppianicum gratiis condemnavit, iam non eos Iunius subsortitus est qui pecunia accepta condemnarent, iam potest aliquis ab initio non sedisse et tamen Oppianicum gratiis condemnasse (Cicero, Pro A. Cluentio, 41.113) ‘Falcula may have been innocent. Thus, indeed, someone condemned Oppianicus without being paid. Indeed, Junius did not appoint men who condemned for payment as judges instead of the original ones. Indeed, it may be that someone sat as judge from the beginning, and nevertheless condemned Oppianicus without being paid.’

In its second discourse-oriented use, ja occurs in realis concessive structures of the form ja (form of être in the subjunctive, typically soit) (ce) (que) . . . (‘although/albeit (that)’); see (31). It is tempting to regard this as a subordinating conjunction, and hence as a different linguistic item from ja. In view, however, of the formal variability of the construction, which allows even examples like (32), it seems safe to assume a close relationship between ja and ja (soit)(ce)(que), such that the latter construction initially represents an extension of ja which gradually attains a certain degree of grammaticalization in its own right. (31)

‘Vray est,’ dist elle, ‘ma dame, que je suis femme comme vous estez; ja soit ce que pour me dissimuler me soye mise en habillemens d’omme comme vous veez a vos yeulx’ (Artois, p. 123: BFM, 1453–67) ‘ “It is true,” she said, “my lady, that I am a woman just like you are; even though to disguise myself I have put on men’s clothes as you can see with your own eyes” ’

(32)

et en estoient hiretier li fil au conte Valois, Phelippes et Carles, ja fuissent ils de plus lontain degré (Froissart, p. 53: BFM, 1369–1400) ‘And the sons of Count Valois, Philippe and Charles, were heirs to this, although they were further removed’

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

149

Again, Modern French déjà, despite having a variety of functions at the discourse level, does not possess a use equivalent to this one. As shown in (4) above, Latin iam could be used in irrealis concessive conditional environments,3 but appears to have been impossible in realis concessives of the type marked by ja (soit) (ce) (que). In positive-polarity contexts, ja most frequently occurs in postverbal position. If tokens of the concessive construction, where the order is fixed, and tokens of ja in the context of non-finite verbs are eliminated, 61.3% of the total number of occurrences of the particle in positive-polarity contexts were found to follow the finite verb in my data. Assertive ja, however, is typically—although not systematically—placed in preverbal position, at the head of the clause, in which case it triggers verb–subject inversion, as seen in (28). As temporal/aspectual ja may also appear in preverbal position and trigger inversion (see (40) below), word order is not, however, a reliable indicator of the function of the particle in any given case. 8.4.2 Ja in negative-polarity contexts In negative-polarity contexts, ja is with overwhelming frequency used in actual negative contexts, in the presence of the preverbal negative marker ne. It most frequently has future-time reference, meaning ‘never (from now/then on)’, as in (33). In negative contexts, ja thus functions as a temporal quantifier, typically quantifying universally over times subsequent to TT: (33)

‘Si m’aït Diex veez ci l’escu que nus ne doit pendre a son col s’il n’est mieldres chevaliers que autres, et ce est cil qui ja a mon escient a mon col ne pendra . . .’ (Graal, p. 28: c.1220) ‘So help me God (you) see here the shield that no one may hang around his neck unless he is a better knight than others, and it is one that in my opinion shall never hang around my neck . . .’

This purely temporal, quantificational meaning in negative contexts represents an innovation with respect to Latin iam. In Latin, the meaning in question was rendered instead by the negative indefinite numquam ‘never’, which was not, however, primarily used in future-time contexts, but equally in past-time contexts. In this type of context, ja is in competition with jamais throughout the Middle Ages, and may—as shown in (35) below—occur alongside the latter without there being necessarily any difference of meaning. However, unlike jamais, which gradually becomes extended to past-time contexts previously covered by the quantifier onques (from the Latin NPI umquam ‘ever’), thereby eventually making onques obsolete (Hansen 2012), ja essentially remains confined to negative contexts with future-time reference. 3 As noted by König (1988: 147), concessive conditionals are frequently marked by expressions with scalar properties.

150

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

The phasal, presuppositional meaning ‘not any more’, equivalent to Latin iam non and Modern French ne . . . plus, seems clearly more appropriate in a small number of instances of ja in negative contexts, mainly towards the end of the Medieval/Renaissance period (cf. (34)), so this use may in fact be a Latinism. (34)

Et quant Mons. De Bourbon oÿt ainsi parler de son oncle, il luy dist que s’il lui plaisoit rescripre quelque chose, qu’il [le] resjouyroit; à quoy le duc respondit qu’il ne faisoit jà mestier, en disant: ‘Cet homme ne regnera point longuement en paix sans avoir ung merveilleusement grant trouble!’ (Jean Le Clerc, Interpolations et variantes de la Chronique scandaleuse, 153: BMF, c.1502) ‘And when Mylord de Bourbon heard his uncle thus spoken of, he said to him that if he would care to write something back, that would make him happy; to which the Duke responded that there was no longer any need, saying, “That man will not reign peacefully for long without experiencing great disorder!” ’

It is true that, throughout the Medieval and Renaissance period, occurrences are found that are genuinely ambiguous between a purely temporal ‘never’-meaning and the phasal meaning, as in (35). However, where only one interpretation seems possible, it is normally the purely temporal one (‘never’). (35)

‘Cambra,’ dist ela, ‘ja mais n’estras parede, Ne ja ledece n’ert an tei demenede’ (Alexis, p. 99, v. 142: BFM, c.1050) ‘ “Chamber,” she said, “nevermore will you be adorned, and never will joy be displayed in you/nor will joy be displayed in you (any more)” ’

To the extent that Modern French déjà is used in negative contexts at all, it is interpreted in a phasal sense, and constitutes a pragmatically marked alternative either to the canonical discontinuative ne . . . plus ‘not any more’, marking the earlierthan-expected beginning of a negative state, as in (36)—or, more rarely, outside non-metalinguistic contexts—to the canonical continuous negative ne . . . pas encore ‘not yet’, suggesting a strong expectation that a transition from a negative into a positive state might have taken place prior to TT, as in (37). (36)

. . . l’eau avait coulé sur le bois ciré et la serviette brodée, et quand Henriette voulait enrayer le désastre, elle renversa le deuxième . . . ce fut Alexis qui essuya l’eau avec son grand mouchoir de linon, bien soigneusement, pendant qu’Henriette pleurait sur une chaise. ‘Mais ce n’est rien, disait-il, il n’y paraît déjà pas . . . (Triolet, Le premier accroc coûte deux cents francs, 1945: FRANTEXT) ‘. . . the water had been spilt on the polished wood and the embroidered napkin, and when Henriette tried to control the extent of the damage, she knocked over the other one . . . it was Alexis who very carefully wiped up the water with his large linen handkerchief while Henriette sat on a chair and cried. “But it’s nothing,” he said, “already it doesn’t show . . .” ’

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja (37)

151

Tu vois Montale, ça m’étonne que tu ne l’aies pas déjà fait. (Izzo, Chourmo, 1996: FRANTEXT) ‘You see, Montale, I’m surprised that you haven’t already done so.’

In strong negative-polarity contexts, ja most frequently precedes the finite verb, often occurring at the head of the clause. In finite negative clauses, the particle is thus found preverbally 58.4% of occasions in my data. As observed by Ingham (2010), it does not necessarily trigger verb–subject inversion when occurring at the head of the clause, however. In addition to strong (i.e. explicitly) negative contexts, ja is sporadically attested in weak negative-polarity (or affective) contexts like that in (38), where its function is that of a negative-polarity item (NPI). Like most occurrences of ja in strong negative contexts, the NPI is found with future-time reference, quantifying universally over times subsequent to TT. This use, which is not found with either iam or déjà, but which ja shares with jamais, seems to have largely disappeared in Middle French, as there is only a single attestation of it in my post-13th century data: (38)

Frans chevaliers por Dieu lessiez moi entrer en cele a senestre, car en cele porrai je esprover ma force, et connoistre s’il avra ja en moi proesce ne hardement por quoi je doie avoir los de chevalerie. (Graal, p. 41, c.1220) ‘Noble knight for God’s sake let me enter the one on the left, for on that one I will be able to try my strength and find out if there will ever be enough courage and audacity in me that I may be praised for chivalry.’

8.5 Explaining the polyfunctionality of ja When attempting to explain the polyfunctionality of ja, or any other particle for that matter, we need to distinguish between the observed polyfunctionality of the particle at the level of parole and the degree to which the particle might actually be polysemous at the level of langue. In other words, are the different uses of ja a matter of pragmatics or semantics? I will assume that the distinction between the two levels of description is most usefully drawn as described in Hansen (2008: 12ff.). Thus, it is not in the first instance a matter of whether or not a given element of meaning is truth-conditional, but rather of whether or not that element of meaning appears to be coded in a linguistic item or construction. I consider all coded meanings—including those that are textual or interpersonal in nature—to belong to semantics. Pragmatic meaning, on the other hand, arises as a result of the interplay between coded meanings and the linguistic and situational co(n)texts in which they appear. Pragmatic meaning is therefore inferential and defeasible in nature.

152

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

In accordance with this view, I will further assume that all linguistic expressions possess at least one coded meaning. Any observed polyfunctionality of a given expression may then be attributable to actual semanticized extensions from the ‘basic’ coded meaning, i.e. to polysemy, to mere contextual modulation of the basic meaning, or to a mix of the two. At the synchronic level, if two uses of ja have substantially different logical and/or argumentational properties, that suggests they have the status of independent senses. If one reading can systematically be derived from another using salient features of the co(n)text together with general pragmatic principles, then the two readings will be subsumed under a single coded sense. As the present study is primarily diachronic in scope, I take it that the basic meaning of ja is historically prior to other meanings. In other words, it is that coded meaning from which other coded meanings can plausibly be historically derived, and on the basis of which contextual modulation can be explained.4 At the diachronic level, I assume, by default, that if a particular reading of ja appears in the data at a substantially later date than another reading, then the two represent independent coded senses. If, on the other hand, the two readings coexist at any historical stage, and the interpretive difference between them can be systematically attributed to contextual factors, then they are likely to be mere contextual modulations of one and the same coded sense. Finally, as argued by Hansen and Strudsholm (2008), contrastive analysis may be a useful additional tool. Thus, if two or more languages that are genetically and areally related (such as Latin, Old French, and Modern French) have corresponding lexical items which share one or more salient uses, then it is tempting to assume that any uses not so shared represent independent coded senses of those items. 8.5.1 The ‘basic’ sense of ja I will assume that the temporal sense ‘(as of/from) now (on)’ is the basic sense of the particle, which forms the basis for its other uses. There are several reasons to make this assumption, the principal one having to do with the frequency in my data of the temporal sense, as compared to other interpretations of ja. Thus, in the five texts that were exhaustively analysed, tokens of ja that must be, or are preferentially, given a temporal interpretation number 334 (or 74.2%) out of a total of 450. Across these five texts there is, moreover, an overall downward trend in the use of temporal ja (see Table 8.4), suggesting that the aspectual and non-temporal uses became increasingly entrenched over time:

4 In a strictly synchronic study, the notion of basic meaning would have to be conceived differently; see Hansen (2008: 39f.).

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

153

TABLE 8.4 Percentage of purely temporal uses of ja Roland 88.9%

Looïs 84.9%

Graal 63.5%

Artu 78.1%

Joinville 65.3%

The fact that in negative contexts, ja is almost exclusively temporal in meaning further supports this, as there is some evidence that negative contexts may be more linguistically conservative (Givón 1979: 121ff.; see also Dörper 1990). Secondly, as mentioned in section 8.2, Hansen (2008) presents evidence that temporality/aspectuality is basic not only to ja’s closest Modern French descendant, déjà, but also to Modern French jamais and jadis, whose uses are exclusively temporal in nature. If the temporal use of ja is not cognitively and/or diachronically prior to its other uses, it seems somewhat surprising that all the modern descendants of the particle should nevertheless have temporality as a feature of their meaning. Thirdly, according to Ernout and Meillet (1979: 304), ja is etymologically deictic, Latin iam being composed of a deictic root related to items such as is, ibi, ita, etc. + an adverbial element -am. While deixis is a feature of the temporal sense of ja, that is not true of any of its additional senses (pace Kroon and Risselada 2002).5 8.5.2 Temporal/aspectual uses: positive-polarity contexts The basic sense of ja ‘now’ contains two semantic features: [+temporality] and [+proximal deixis]. Pragmatically, this sense will frequently conversationally implicate the existence of a transition point between two opposing states of affairs, inviting the inference that if the speaker takes the trouble to point out that e is the case at speech time, then probably ¬e was the case prior to speech time. It is this inference that accounts for the common, and more specific, interpretation ‘as of now’/‘from now on’.6 For temporal ja to get past-time (‘then’/‘before’/‘once’) reference, as seen in (23), we must assume that the deictic feature posited above as part of the basic meaning of the particle is modified in one of two ways. One possibility is that the trait ‘proximal’ is replaced by the trait ‘distal’, resulting in an interpretation corresponding to Modern French jadis or auparavant. This reading is typically found when ja co-occurs with the simple past, as in (23). Such a modification of the semantics of ja can 5 Indeed, Rosén (2009: 365) describes Latin iam as being ‘of basic temporal reference’, although she presents no argument for this analysis. 6 It is, of course, conceivable that the implicated transition point could instead be between a present e and a future ¬e. Although such an implicature is empirically attested with words for ‘now’ in various languages, it is intuitively less common that the ‘past ¬e’ implicature. In the case of ja, I have no examples of such a ‘future ¬e’ implicature in my database, and it does not form the basis for any derived uses of the marker.

154

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

therefore possibly be explained by the perception of a contradiction between the trait ‘proximal’ inherent in the particle and the distal nature of the simple past. Why speakers would have thought to combine a proximal particle with a distal tense form in the first place is, however, far from clear from this explanation, not least because my data contain no plausible so-called bridging contexts (Heine 2002: 86; see Hansen 2008: 62–3 for a slightly revised account). An alternative analysis may therefore be preferable, according to which ja simply takes wide scope with respect to the tense operator. The combination of ja + simple past tense would thus mark that at speech time the state of affairs described in the clause is located in the past, has been completed in the past, and has no particular continued relevance at speech time. Occurrences of ja with future-time reference in positive-polarity contexts can be accounted for along the same lines: in all cases, the host clause describes an event that is predicted to take place in the immediate future, and for which conditions are in place at the moment of speech. Arguably, therefore, this use of ja is not in fact a separate sense, but simply a variant of the use of ja with present-time reference in which the particle takes wide scope with respect to the future tense operator. The TT of ja is thus not the unspecified future time of the event, but rather the time of utterance, such that what is asserted at TT is the prediction, rather than the eventual realization, of a future state of affairs. In both cases, then, ja is arguably used in its basic temporal sense ‘(as of/from) now (on)’. In other words, on the proposed analysis, the past- and future-time interpretations ‘then’/‘before’/‘once’ and ‘soon’ are not semanticized, but are merely pragmatic effects of the combination of ja with non-present-tense forms. Some support for this may be found in the fact that combinations of temporal ja with either the simple past or the future tense are relatively rare in positive-polarity contexts in my data: in the five texts that were exhaustively analysed, only 18 tokens were found, out of a total of 149 occurrences of ja in positive-polarity contexts. In the BFM texts, a further 19 instances can be identified. In the BMF data, no such uses were found at all. When temporal ja co-occurs with the imperfect, as in (39), on the other hand, its interpretation is anaphoric rather than deictic, corresponding to Modern French alors or à ce moment-là. That interpretation can be obtained if we assume that the deictic centre itself is changed, from text-external speech time to text-internal TT, while the specification ‘proximal’ remains. Since, with the present tense, speech time is also TT, such a shift in deictic centre is not implausible. (39)

Lancelot qui son pooir i met le fiert si durement qu’il abat lui et le cheval a terre si felenessement qu’a poi qu’il ne li a le col brisié, il point oultre et revient arriere et voit le cheval qui ja se relevoit, et il le prent au frain si le meine a .i. arbre . . . (Graal, p. 132, c.1220) ‘Lancelot, who puts all his power behind it, hits him so hard that he knocks him and the horse to the ground so violently that he almost breaks his neck, he

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

155

spurs on and comes back and sees the horse which was then/at that moment getting up, and he takes it by the bridle and leads it to a tree . . .’ The retention of the trait ‘proximal’ may seem to be in conflict with the explanation proposed for combinations of ja and the simple past, inasmuch as the imperfect, by virtue of being a past-tense form, is also deictically distal. Unlike the simple past, the imperfect is, however, an anaphoric tense form (Riegel, Pellat, and Rioul 1994: 306). Moreover, it has often been noted that the imperfect is aspectually similar to the present tense inasmuch as the TT is in both cases included in the process described, whereas TT is external to events described in the simple past (see e.g. Wilmet 1970: 30ff.; Martin and Wilmet 1980: }}130, 154; Riegel et al. 1994: 305f.). In the phasal sense of ja ‘already’, the inference that ¬e was the case prior to speech time is further semanticized as a weak presupposition of the marker.7 Moreover, a conventional implicature is added to the effect that the transition point between ¬e and e has occurred earlier than expected. The deictic feature that characterizes temporal ja, on the other hand, is no longer present. Phasal ja is first unambiguously attested in Li coronemenz Looïs (1130), by a single token, and does not reappear in my data until the 12th century. However, the data contain quite a few tokens of ja in environments such as (40) that will have provided bridging contexts for the semanticization of the phasal meaning: (40)

Quant jel vos dis, n’en feïstes nient; Mais nel ferez par le men loement. Se vos cornez, n’er mie hardement. Ja avez vos ambsdous les braz sanglanz! (Roland, vv. 1708–11, c.1090) ‘When I told you to, you did nothing; No more will you do it with my approval. If you blow the horn, it will not be an act of courage. Now/already you have both arms covered in blood!’

As the translation of (10) above suggests, ja as a temporal focus particle is closely related to ja as a phasal adverb. Indeed, the two are functionally equivalent, and as the latter is not chronologically prior to the former in my data, there seems to be no reason to distinguish them at the semantic level. With the focus particle, the focused constituent is identified with a point on a contextually given scale, and ja marks that point as having been reached sooner than expected. In cases such as (26), repeated below as (41) for convenience, where the focus constituent is an adverbial of duration, a seemingly paradoxical interpretation arises, according to which the duration of the state of affairs in question is longer than one might have expected:

7 See Hansen (2008: 29ff.) for arguments that presuppositions and conventional implicatures are fundamentally semantic in nature.

156 (41)

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen Sire, en tel maniere con je vous cont, empris je cest pont a garder, que je ai ja gardé III mois entiers. (Tristan en prose, p. 78: BFM, 13th c., after 1240) ‘My Lord, in the way that I’m telling you, I undertook to guard this bridge, which I have already guarded for three whole months.’

This results from the fact that if a certain duration (e.g. the three months in (26)/(41)) has been reached sooner than expected, then the commencement of the state of affairs described in the host clause necessarily lies further in the past than might have been expected, hence has lasted longer. The duration may be evaluated objectively as in (26)/(41), or subjectively as in (42): (42)

‘Lancelot, je te requier sor la crestienté que tu as et sus l’ordre de chevalerie que tu receus ja a lonc tens que tu me dies laquel vie te plest plus’ (Graal, p. 128, c.1220) ‘Lancelot, I demand in the name of your Christianity and of the order of knighthood that you received a long time ago already that you tell me which life you prefer’

8.5.3 Temporal/aspectual uses: negative polarity contexts The use of ja in negative contexts can now be straightforwardly explained: the combination of the clausal negator ne with temporal ja yields the meaning ‘not [from now on]/from now on [not]’, equivalent to ‘never in the future’. With the addition of the implicature/presupposition that e was the case prior to speech time, i.e. when the clausal negator is combined with phasal ja, the interpretation becomes equivalent to ‘not any more’. There is thus no reason to posit uses of ja in negative contexts as instantiating separate coded senses of the particle; rather, they merely represent possible pragmatic functions of it. That said, in order to account for uses of ja in negative clauses with future-in-thepast reference, such as (43), we need to envisage a possible shift in the deictic centre from speech time to TT analogous to that posited above for combinations of ja with the imperfect tense in positive-polarity contexts: (43)

. . . et li quens lor jura que ja a mort ne a vie n’averoit danree de sa terre . . . (Ménéstrel de Reims, p. 18v: BFM, c.1260) ‘. . . and the count swore to them that never in death or in life would he have the tiniest parcel of his land . . .’

The use of ja as a weak NPI is found in the earliest texts in my database, but only as a low-frequency phenomenon. Thus, in the five texts that were exhaustively analysed, ja as an NPI represents 7.8% of the tokens in La chanson de Roland, decreasing to 3.8% in Le coronemenz Looïs, to 1.4–1.5% in La queste del Saint Graal and Le mort le roi Artu, and finally to 0% in Joinville. In the remaining data, except for a lone token

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

157

from the mid-15th century Roman du comte d’Artois, it likewise disappears completely by the 14th century. This might suggest that we are, in this case, dealing with a separate sense of the particle, rather than with a pragmatic effect of the combination of the basic temporal meaning with affective contexts. However, it is likely that the disappearance of NPI ja can be attributed to competition from jamais. As argued in Hansen (2012), jamais appears to have been initially lexicalized as a negative marker, and only subsequently extended to affective contexts. It is precisely in the 14th century that jamais becomes properly entrenched as an NPI, and since that marker is not found in positivepolarity contexts at all (except in the frozen collocation à/pour jamais), its association with negative polarity is stronger than that of ja, whose positive-polarity uses are always frequent and appear, as seen in Table 8.3 above, to increase proportionately vis-à-vis its negative-polarity uses in the course of the Medieval period. 8.5.4 Non-temporal senses Ja as an assertive discourse particle is attested as early as La chanson de Roland, but its overall frequency is not high in my data. The discourse particle is found quite systematically in contexts that at least strongly implicate that the truth or falsity of a particular state of affairs is in doubt. It thus appears largely equivalent to Modern French bien, as used in (44) and (45) (see Hansen 1998b): (44)

A. On me dit que ma lettre n’est jamais arrivée. B. Pourtant, je l’ai bien postée. ‘A. They say my letter never arrived. B. But I did post it.’

(45)

As-tu bien posté ma lettre? ‘Did you actually post my letter?’

More precisely, assertive ja marks that the speaker is taking into account the possibility (either explicitly suggested by another speaker or impli[cat]ed by the context) of a state of affairs of opposite polarity to the one described in the host clause. When used in declarative clauses, ja rejects that opposite state of affairs; thus, in (28) above (repeated here as (46)), the context suggests that the addressee is attacking the speaker because he believes that the speaker is not Roland, but an enemy. When used in polar interrogatives like (29), repeated below as (47), ja suggests that the answer hoped for is of the same polarity as the question itself, while acknowledging the possibility that it may not be. (46)

‘Sire cumpain, faites le vos de gred? / Ja est ço Rollant, ki tant vos soelt amer! (Roland, vv. 2000–2001, c.1060) ‘My noble friend, do you do it on purpose? In truth, it is Roland, who has always loved you!’

158 (47)

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen Sire, fet messire Gauvains, volentiers; vos souviendroit il ja de la bele damoisele dont je vos parloie avant-hier (Artu, 70–1230) ‘Sire, says Sir Gawain, with pleasure; might you indeed/now recall the beautiful maiden that I told you about the day before yesterday’

Assertive ja thus has both a subjective and an intersubjective aspect to its meaning: it is subjective insofar as it is the speaker who evaluates a particular state of affairs as being either actual or desirable, and intersubjective in its taking into account of an alternative point of view. To the extent that internal semantic reconstruction can be performed using established tendencies of change such as the trend toward increasing (inter)subjectification of meanings, these traits suggest that assertive ja is a derived sense of the particle, i.e. a meaning that has developed from an older and more basic one (see Traugott 1986; Traugott and Dasher 2002). The fact that assertive ja is typically found at the head of its host clause supports the suggestion that the left periphery is a preferred site for the conventionalization of intersubjective meanings. Insofar as assertive ja may take into account opposing views that are merely virtual, it does not, however, support the hypothesis that there is a distinction between the left and right periphery, such that the former is inherently dialogual, while the latter is inherently dialogic (cf. Beeching and Detges, forthcoming). Assertive ja differs, however, from assertive bien (which itself developed in the course of medieval French: see Detges and Waltereit 2009) in being compatible with clausal negation, as seen in (48). It must be said, however, that such examples are rare: (48)

‘. . . se je pouoye avoir cheval qui me peuist legierement porter jusquez la, ce que non, dont je suis triste et merancolieux trop plus que je ne vous dy.’ ‘De cheval,’ fait le conte, ‘beau sire! Et en estez vous en dangier? Ja ne savez vous que j’ay ung coursier qui n’a point de pareil pour voyagier et porter ung homme doulcement . . .’ (Roman du comte d’Artois, p. 138: BFM, c.1453–67) ‘ “. . . if I could have a horse which could easily carry me there, which I can’t, which makes me far more sad and melancholic than I can tell you.” “A horse,” says the count, “my good gentleman! And are you lacking one? Indeed, do you not know that I have a steed which has no equal when it comes to traveling and carrying a man gently . . .” ’

My data contain a number of examples of bridging contexts, such as (49) and (50), where ja is ambiguous between an assertive and a temporal interpretation. Examples such as (50), where ja introduces the apodosis of a conditional, are a particularly frequent type:

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

159

(49)

Sire, fet li preudons, por quoi le demandez vos?—Por ce, fet il, que je l’enporteroie avec moi por savoir s’il a tel vertu come l’en dit.—Je nel vos lo mie, fet soi li preudons, que vos ja l’emportez fors de çaienz, . . . (Graal, p. 28, c.1220) ‘My Lord, says the good man, why do you ask?—Because, he says, I’ll take it with me in order to find out if it has the power that it is said to have.—I don’t, says the good man, advise you to actually take it away from here/to take it away from here now/to ever take it away from here . . .’

(50)

Mais un lion trueve a l’entree. Dens resquingniez, geule baee, A la gorge li est saillis. Ja fust li moignez malbaillis Se la pucele demorast, Car li lyons le devorast. (Coinci, t. 2, v. 84: BFM, 1218–27) ‘But he finds a lion at the entrance. Teeth bared, mouth wide open, It jumped at his throat. In truth/now/soon, the friar would have been killed, If the maiden had tarried, For the lion would have eaten him up.’

It seems, therefore, that assertive ja represents a semantic extension of the temporal sense of the particle. Such an extension is hardly surprising, given on the one hand that as a proximally deictic element, temporal ja is already grounded in the perspective of the speaker, and on the other hand that states of affairs that are locatable at speech time will thereby also be eminently assertable. At the same time, the element of proximal deixis in temporal ja can do duty as a face-saving device in the dialogic, assertive use by nominally confining the validity of the counter-expectational state of affairs marked by ja to the moment of speech (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987). ‘Intermediate’ instances like the ones in (49) and (50) are actually more numerous than the clear-cut assertive examples, suggesting that assertive ja never became strongly entrenched despite the fact that it is found in La chanson de Roland, which is one of the earliest text in my database. Its relative rarity could, however, be due to the fundamentally dialogic nature of its meaning, which makes it most likely to occur in direct speech, as opposed to narrative. Moreover, a couple of examples like (51), where two tokens of ja occur within the same clause, one with assertive, the other with temporal meaning, seem to testify to the cognitive reality of the assertive sense of the particle for medieval speakers: (51)

‘Je voil, fet ele, que en amende de mon serpent deviegniez mes hons.’ Et il respont que ce ne feroit il pas.—‘Non? fet ele. Ja le fustes vos ja; ançois que vos receussiez l’omage de vostre seignor estiez vos a moi.’ (Graal, p. 98: BFM, c.1220) ‘ “I wish, she said, that as compensation for my serpent you should become my vassal.” And he replied that he would not do that.—“No?” she said. “As a matter of fact, you used to be; before you paid homage to your Lord you were mine.” ’

160

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

The concessive construction ja (soit) (ce) (que), which is first attested in my data in the early 13th century, can be seen as developing either out of the assertive sense of ja, or directly out of its temporal sense. As noted by König (1988: 154f.), there are close connections between concession and, on the one hand, emphatic assertion or, on the other hand, temporality, particularly notions of simultaneity or continuity. There is typically little communicative point in either emphatically asserting the truth of one of a pair of linked clauses or stressing the fact that the content of one of those clauses is currently valid alongside that of the other, unless there is some perceived incompatibility between the two. Like the assertive sense of ja, the concessive construction is dialogic in nature, either reacting to or pre-empting objections on the part of addressees. It is thus essentially intersubjective in meaning. In this construction, ja invariably occurs on the left periphery of its host clause, but the concessive host clause is most frequently found to the right of its main clause. Like assertive ja, ja (soit)(ce)(que) thus supports the idea of the clause peripheries as loci for the (inter)subjectification of meanings, formulated by Beeching and Detges (forthcoming). However, the construction is at best neutral with respect to the hypothesis about the respective roles of the left and right periphery. As a clause connective, ja (soit)(ce)(que) represents the only use of ja at the textual level (see Traugott 1989: 35), and the most grammaticalized use of the particle. Its position in the host clause is fixed, and rather than scoping a constituent or a state of affairs, it scopes an abstract relation between states of affairs. The process of grammaticalization is not brought to completion, however, as the construction never becomes fully fixed at the formal level. Ja (soit)(ce)(que) appears to have fallen out of use by the 16th century, the BMF data containing no tokens of the constructions. Finally, the use of ja as a non-temporal focus particle is quite rare, and in fact not unambiguously attested, in my data, where it seems that alternative interpretations can be brought to bear in all cases. Insofar as such an analysis is accepted for examples like (27) or (52) below, both of which could be analysed as instances of the affirmative particle, scoping the clause as a whole, this use must represent a bleaching of ja as a temporal focus particle: instead of scoping a temporal adverbial, ja can in this type of context be seen as scoping some other type of scalar element (the degree adverb moult in (27) or bien in (52)), implying that the particular rung on the relevant scale represented by the focus constituent is higher up the scale than might have been expected. (52)

Un coutelet li a tendu, Mais un peu trop a atendu, Car ja bien pres perdue l’eüt. (Coincé, Miracles de Nostre Dame, t. 2, v. 171: BFM, c.1218–27) ‘He handed her a small knife, But he waited a bit too long, For he very nearly indeed lost her.’

The non-temporal focus particle would then represent a further degree of subjectification with respect to the temporal focus particles. In the latter use, only the

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

161

evaluation of prematurity in the attainment of a particular rung on the temporal scale is necessarily subjective, whereas that rung as such may be objectively verifiable. Thus, in the case of (26), the assertion that the bridge has been held for three months, as opposed to any other possible period of time, is in principle one whose accuracy can be checked. In cases like (27) or (52), on the other hand, the ascription of a particular degree of difficulty or closeness is an entirely subjective matter. 8.5.5 The semantic/pragmatic network of ja It is possible now to represent the network of uses of ja as shown in Fig. 8.2. As in Fig. 8.1, arrows represent the assumed direction of semantic extension/contextual modulation. Uses represented by boxes encased in solid lines are presumed coded meanings of ja, whereas uses that are represented inside dotted lines are hypothesized to be contextually modulated versions of some other use. The non-temporal focus particle (FP) is shaded to indicate uncertainty about its status as a separate reading.

Temporal ja (future-time)

Temporal ja (past-time)

Negative ja

Temporal ja (present-time)

Phasal ja (incl. temporal FP)

Assertive ja

Concessive ja (soit)(ce)(que)

NPI ja

Non-temporal FP

Figure 8.2 Network of uses of Medieval French ja

8.6 Conclusions 8.6.1 The disappearance of ja Explaining why a given linguistic item or construction eventually disappears is a delicate matter. Nevertheless, to the extent that an obsolete item is replaced by one or more other items, the nature of the latter may provide clues to the disappearance of the former. As discussed in section 8.4, the different uses of ja are to a large extent inherited from Latin iam, but in the course of Medieval French, several items arise which compete with ja in one or more of its uses. These more recent items are, in all but one case, phonologically more substantial and morphologically more complex than ja. Indeed, as already mentioned, three of them are morphologically based on

162

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

combinations of ja with additional elements which originally would have made the intended interpretation more explicit. Thus, in its phasal sense ja gradually loses out to déjà, whose polyfunctionality does not begin to develop until after the disappearance of ja (Hansen 2008: 169, 218). Although déjà is characterized, as we saw in section 8.2.2 above, by quite extensive polyfunctionality, it differs from ja inasmuch as it almost exclusively occurs in positive-polarity contexts. Moreover, in all its extended uses, it preserves essential elements of the basic phasal sense, viz. scalarity, inchoativity, and/or prematurity. Ja with past-time reference gives way to jadis, which is polarity-neutral, but monosemous, being used exclusively as a temporal adverbial referring to a past that is unconnected to the present. In negative contexts, it is jamais which principally encroaches on territory previously occupied by ja. As shown in Hansen (2012), however, jamais is specialized for negative polarity from the beginning, it has only temporal interpretations, and it gradually widens its remit to comprise both past and future reference, unlike ja, which as we have seen remained confined to future-time reference in negativepolarity contexts. It seems that ja was also, to a lesser extent, in competition as a discontinuative marker with ne . . . mais/ne . . . plus (see Hansen, 2014), only the latter of which survived into Classical and subsequently Modern French. If this use of ja was not a Latinism, as tentatively suggested in section 8.4.2 above, it may have been the result of a push-chain following the lexicalization of jamais. However, the two markers were possibly too similar for such an opposition to be viable in the longer term. Moreover, ne . . . mais/ne . . . plus were already well entrenched in this domain by the time most of the clear examples of ja as a discontinuative are found. Whereas Medieval French originally enjoyed a great deal of choice among markers of sentence negation, the gradual formation of the present-day n-word paradigm begins to take shape in Late Medieval French, essentially reducing the number of available items to one for each grammaticalized aspect of negation, i.e. pas (as opposed to mie, point, goutte etc.) for ‘standard’ clause negation (see Payne 1985: 198), rien (as opposed to chose, néant, etc.) for inanimate argument functions, personne (as opposed to âme, homme, etc.) for human argument functions, jamais (as opposed to onques and ja) for the temporal adverbial function, and so forth. Ja’s remaining temporal uses are fulfilled in Modern French by etymologically unrelated but likewise less polyfunctional items like maintenant ‘now’, désormais ‘from now on’, and bientôt ‘soon’, all of which according to the TLF are first attested in the medieval period (12th century in the case of the former two, 14th century in the case of the latter). As an assertive marker, ja has been replaced by bien (< the adverb bien ‘well’) (Hansen 1998b). Judging by the data adduced in Detges and Waltereit (2009: 55ff.), assertive uses of the latter start to appear in the 13th century. Like the majority of the

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

163

Modern French markers mentioned above, bien is less polyfunctional than ja. Bien also forms part of the fully grammaticalized concessive conjunction bien que, which replaces the only loosely grammaticalized construction ja (soit)(ce)(que) as a marker of realis concession. In view of the above observations, it can therefore be tentatively suggested that ja may have disappeared essentially because it was perceived by speakers as too ambiguous or vague. As we have seen, a number of its uses are very close in meaning, yet arguably not close enough not to have caused confusion. Indeed, in a sizeable portion of the examples in my data, the intended interpretation of ja cannot be determined with precision, even in context. While word order provides a clue, the position of ja in different uses is not systematic enough to be a fully determining factor. This, of course, raises the question of why speakers of Latin lived happily with the largely similar polyfunctionality of iam (and, indeed, why ja survived throughout the Medieval/Renaissance period). I do not at the time of writing have a very precise answer to this question, except to suggest that Latin was generally speaking a language with a high tolerance of polyfunctionality/polysemy, whereas, intuitively, Modern French is considerably less so. Moreover, it is generally acknowledged that Modern French is the most grammaticalized of the Romance languages, on a variety of parameters (see Marchello-Nizia 2006: ch. 7; Carlier, Lamiroy, and De Mulder 2012). In other words, Modern French is arguably characterized by a greater degree of transparency at the level of both lexical and syntactic (although clearly not morphological) form:function relations than either Latin or Medieval French. 8.6.2 Cycles of pragmaticalization Table 8.5 provides an overview of the different functions of the three particles discussed in this chapter: iam, ja, and déjà, and of the presence or absence of (partial) correspondences between them. Table 8.5 shows that there is substantial overlap of use among the three items. At the same time, the functions that are found in only one of the three languages seem too numerous, and too diverse, to be compatible with the assumption that iam, ja, and déjà are essentially one and the same particle in slightly different morphophonological guises. In the case of the two French particles, examples like (53), from Renaissance French, support the idea that at this stage of evolution, where both ja and déjà were part of the language, speakers perceived them as sufficiently different to be used within the same clause: (53) Et ja desja la race des François / Me veut nombrer entre ceus qu’elle loue (Ronsard, Le premier livre des Odes, 1550: FRANTEXT) ‘And now already the French race / Wants to count me among those that it praises’

164

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

TABLE 8.5 Functions of Latin iam, Medieval French ja, and Modern French déjà iam

ja

déjà

purely temporal phasal – scalar temporal scalar non-temporal – assertive – – – (purely focal constituentscoping) – – –

temporal phasal – temporal focus particle – – assertive – – concessive construction (non-temporal focus particle)

– phasal iterative temporal focus particle scalar categorizing – thematic conjunctional – non-temporal focus particle interrogative imperative –

discontinuative

– – negative universal temporal quantifier (discontinuative)

continuative negative –

– temporal NPI

(pragmatically marked discontinuative) – –

While we have no solid evidence that the temporal/aspectual content-level senses of iam and ja diachronically precede the context-level senses of those particles, I have argued in section 8.5.1 that there is nonetheless good reason to posit the temporal senses of ja as more basic than the the non-temporal ones, and that etymological considerations suggest the same is true of iam. As for Modern French déjà, Hansen (2008) provides textual evidence that the phasal aspectual sense is, indeed, diachronically prior to the other contemporary uses of that marker. If we accept the above arguments, we are led to the conclusion that all three particles, iam, ja, and déjà, evolved from a basic, and very similar, temporal/aspectual sense towards one or more discourse-oriented senses which, although not identical, are in several cases reminiscent of one another. What this suggests is that, just as there are observed cycles of grammaticalization, of which the best known is probably the so-called Jespersen cycle (Jespersen 1917) pertaining to the evolution of clause negation across a number of languages, so we may equally have cycles of pragmaticalization. That is to say, it may be that when the content-level source item of a context-level (i.e. pragmatic) marker is replaced, then the new item is likely eventually to become the source of context-level functions similar to those of the item it replaced.

Cyclicity in semantic/pragmatic change: Medieval ja

165

That this might be so is rendered plausible by the observation that certain categories of lexical items are common sources of pragmatic markers both across languages and across time. That is the case, for instance, with verbs of perception (e.g. English look!, I/you see, French écoute ‘listen’, voyons!  ‘let’s see’/‘oh come now!’); epistemic verbs (e.g. English I think, you know, French tu comprends ‘you understand’, je crois ‘I believe’); speech act verbs (e.g. English say, I ask you!, French dis donc  ‘say’, tu parles !  ‘no kidding’, lit. ‘you talk’, or indeed the Latin and Italian markers investigated by Ghezzi and Molinelli in Chapter 5 of this volume); and temporal/aspectual adverbs (e.g. English now, then again, French maintenant ‘now’, alors ‘then’). The study of such cycles of pragmaticalization could potentially provide a firmer handle on current issues in diachronic semantics and pragmatics such as the role of different types of context and genre in meaning change, and the role of persistence, as well as on the types of pragmatic processes that are involved (cf. Hansen 2008, and several of the papers in Hansen and Visconti 2009).

9 French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già: A case of contact-induced pragmaticalization C H I A R A F E D R I A N I A N D E M AN U E L E M I O L A

9.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter* is to explore a specific case of contact-induced pragmaticalization undergone by some adverbs meaning ‘already’ in Piedmontese Regional Italian, French, and some neighbouring varieties. This pragmaticalization process resulted in the development of a new, discourse-related function of the adverbs under scrutiny, which, in contemporary spoken varieties, can be used in interrogative contexts in order to ask for the repetition of information that the speaker knew, but cannot remember at the time of speaking due to a failure in recall. This topic relates directly to a wider, complex, and well-known phenomenon: the different functions of exact repetition of the same word or sentence (see Norrick 1987; Tannen 1987; 1989 for an overview). The repetition can either be uttered by the speaker herself (auto-repetition: see e.g. Frédéric 1985), or asked for by the speaker, to be uttered by the interlocutor (dialogic repetition: see e.g. Johnstone 1991; 1994). The latter type will be the focus of the present study. To illustrate the object of investigation, let us consider the use of the English adverb ‘again’ in example (1):

* This chapter is the result of a continuous exchange of ideas between the two authors. However, Chiara Fedriani is responsible for the writing of sections 9.1, 9.4, and 9.5, and Emanuele Miola for the writing of sections 9.2 and 9.3. Emanuele Miola’s work was supported by the DOTE–Ricerca, granted by Regione Lombardia and IUSS. The authors thank Anna Giacalone Ramat, Paolo Ramat, and the editors of the volume for their insightful comments on previous versions of the article. Usual disclaimers apply.

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già (1)

167

English ‘So I guess see you later?’ I told them. ‘Yeah. Where are you going to stay?’ Liam asked. ‘Mandy, Irma how was it called again?’ ‘I don’t know.’ They said. ‘I told you to remember! Ohh never mind I think I have a card with their number with me. Here it is. It is called Royal Palace.’ (One Direction Fanfic: Living The Dream, ch. 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o_w5yGmfkc)

The meaning of again in (1) is clearly pragmatic: it signals that the speaker wants the interlocutor to repeat something she has just said or that is part of their previous shared knowledge. It is clear that such an adverb does not have scope over the event denoted by the verb, but takes instead a requesting and discourse-oriented value, since it triggers a specific speech act. As a result, again does not relate to the repetition of a fact, as in the sentence He did it again, but is recruited at the level of textual relations and plays a role in the organization of the dialogic interaction between the speaker and the hearer. In some cases, the speaker herself may have in mind a possible answer to her own question and may decide to add it tentatively, after having inserted a mitigative element. In the following excerpt, the corresponding French pragmaticalized adverb déjà is used in an independent segment and introduces a parenthetic addition (Lindström and Wide 2005), à Savran, which is added as an afterthought by the speaker to signal that she perhaps knows the piece of information she requires: (2) French et vous vous habitez où déjà à Savran? (CFPP 2000) and you you live.PRS.2PL where DM.already in Savran ‘and where do you live, again, in Savran?’1 In this chapter we focus on French and Piedmontese Regional Italian (PRI), which share, along with (Swiss) German, the same strategy for this pragmatic purpose, namely an adverb meaning ‘already’, as illustrated by (3)–(5): (3) French Ah çà! Il ne sait pas versifier, Ah this.thing 3SG.M.NEG know.PRS.3SG NEG versify.INF.PRS cet homme-là! Comment donc s’appelle-t-il, this man-there! How then call.PRS.3SG-EUP-he déjà? (Hugo, Le dernier jour d’un condamné, 1829) DM.already ‘Oh, right! He can’t write poetry, that man! Now, what’s his name, again?’

1

All websites quoted were last accessed on 15 Dec. 2011.

168

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

(4)

Piedmontese Regional Italian Di che anno è già ’sta cosa? (overheard conversation) Of which year be.PRS.3SG DM.already this thing ‘Which year was this thing written in, again?’

(5)

German Der Kurfürst und die Fürstin und die— dritte,— Wie The Elector and the Electress and the third.one How heißt sie schon? (Kleist, Die Prinz von Homburg, Act I, sc. 4, 1809–10) call.PRS.3SG3SG.FDM.already ‘The Elector and the Electress and—some third person,—What’s her name again?’

In line with Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper’s (1989: 275–7) characterization of requests, all the contexts described so far can be interpreted as functioning as ‘support moves’ that occur after the request with two main values. First, they function as interaction-managing tools used by speakers for discourse-planning purposes. More specifically, in (3)–(5) déjà, già, and schon are used as floor-yielding devices determining an other-initiated turn: they prompt a direct involvement of the addressee, who is called upon to take the floor (cf. Ghia 2007). This is a clear case of functional expansion, whereby a form increases its functions and accommodates new circumstances of use without changing its grammatical category. Second, it should be underlined that this new discourse-managing function is politeness-motivated: its value can be paraphrased as ‘I am asking x even though x was part of our shared knowledge, because at the moment it slips my mind; however, I signal that this act does not threaten your face and this temporary lack of memory is rather my own responsibility.’ This relates directly to the notion of face. Such pragmaticalized adverbs function as a sort of apology, ensuring that the addressee is not imposed on and the question is not face-threatening to her. Using these adverbs, the speaker acknowledges the fact that the failure in recall is her own fault, not the interlocutor’s. What’s more, these adverbs preferably occur with the main verb in the past tense (cf. (1) and personal comments reported by our informants). Crucially, the past tense entails more distance, and hence more politeness, between the speaker and the addressee, through the conventionalization of the metaphorical mapping temporal distance > social distance. In this regard, we follow Taylor (1989) in considering this use of the past tense as a pragmatic softener (cf. a sentence such as Excuse me, I wanted to ask you something . . . , where the past tense does not have a deictic value, but rather makes the question less direct, less invasive, and less intrusive; see also Klein 1994 and Waltereit 2001 on what they define as ‘backchecking imperfect’). Hence, also past tenses are motivated in terms of courtesy, as they attenuate one’s involvement in the situation.

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

169

In the course of this chapter we will be discussing this functional enrichment in terms of a process of pragmaticalization—a peculiar case of grammaticalization whereby a linguistic item is recruited at the level of discourse, leading to elements that have predominantly pragmatic functions. In the past few years, whether the acquisition of pragmatic meanings should be better accounted for in terms of grammaticalization or of pragmaticalization has been a hotly debated topic in the relevant literature. This is more than a terminological issue and ultimately depends on the view of ‘grammar’ that is taken, and the range of processes involved in grammaticalization (as discussed thoroughly in Chapter 2 of this volume). In the present chapter we adopt the notion of pragmaticalization in the light of three fundamental features exhibited by the functional units that result from the process under scrutiny: the facts that (a) these mainly fulfil discourse-related values as turnmanaging devices used to cooperatively co-construct the communicative exchange, (b) they contextually develop pragmatic functions in terms of politeness-motivated face-saving tools, and (c) they contradict many parameters traditionally associated with grammaticalization stricto sensu (as discussed in section 9.4). The introductory remarks provided so far support the assertions that the functional units we are taking into account are polysemic in essence, as they serve both discourse planning and sociopragmatic values. This is why such items are to be interpreted both in terms of discourse markers—i.e. elements indexing textual coherence (instructions to the hearer, signalling the correct interpretation of the utterance: Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen 2006; and how a specific message is to be related to the foregoing discourse: Hansen and Rossari 2005: 178)—and in terms of pragmatic markers, as communicative tools aiming to cooperatively co-construct discourse and express the speaker’s stance with regard to the foregoing interaction (see Chapter 2). Moreover, such adverbs have acquired features characteristic of responsive intersubjectivity—as they trigger a precise speech act on the part of the interlocutor, therefore fostering her involvement in the co-construction of the text (textual interactional subjectivity)—but also exhibiting clear signs of attitudinal intersubjectivity in terms of attention that the speaker pays ‘to the presumed interlocutor’s social self ’ (see Chapter 2, this volume; see further Table 2.2 therein for terminology). This should not come as a surprise, since polyfunctionality constitutes the rule, not the exception, for items resulting from pragmaticalization processes (see Chapter 2, fn. 8). In the remainder of this chapter, and following Franck (1980), we label functional units such as those presented in (1)–(5) above as Erinnerungsfragepartikeln (EFP(n)), literally ‘interrogative particles of remembering’. Our investigation is primarily based on (a) the authors’ own intuition and natural observation; (b) a thorough survey of a sample of Piedmontese texts written between the 16th and the mid-20th centuries (see section 9.6 for a detailed list); (c) relevant grammars and dictionaries; and (d), with regard to French, the Corpus de français

170

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

parlé parisien (CFPP 2000). On the basis of these data, we have investigated in detail the range of EFPn attested in these neighbouring varieties with a view to providing a historically-based account to explain their pragmaticalization and geographic distribution. Crucially, we will be arguing that the pragmatic value developed by già in some Italian varieties has to be understood in terms of a process of contact-induced pragmaticalization (see Heine and Kuteva 2010; Mihatsch 2009). More specifically, we suggest that the EFP value of PRI già is due to language contact with French, where déjà had both the original phasal meaning and the EFP value as early as the 19th century (see (3)). We also propose that this is possible by virtue of both déjà and già’s attitude to acquiring multiple functions (Bazzanella et al. 2005; Hansen and Strudsholm 2008), which makes them good candidates to undergo processes of polypragmaticalization (Buchi 2007). This chapter is organized as follows. In section 9.1.1 we briefly summarize the state of current research and present an overview of the existing literature on the topic. Section 9.2 contains an areal survey of the types of EFPn attested in the languages of Europe. We have classified them into three main categories on the basis of different source adverbs and semantic implications realized. This survey describes the areal distribution of EFPn, framing the analysis that follows. In section 9.3 we focus on the process of contact-induced pragmaticalization that resulted in the development of già ‘already’ as EFP in PRI and other neighbouring varieties under the influence of French. We also discuss a possible scenario of historical contact between French and German in this respect. Section 9.4 discusses the pragmaticalization of già, déjà, and other EFPn in the light of Lehmann’s (1995) traditional parameters of grammaticalization, and analyses some typical features observed in the development of EFPn and discourse markers (DMs) along the lines of recent work in the field. The chapter ends with concluding remarks about possible sources for the pragmatic development of temporal and phasal adverbs as EFPn, reviews the results relating to their cross-linguistic distribution, and reassesses their status within the theory of pragmaticalization. 9.1.1 Previous approaches to Erinnungsfragepartikeln EFPn did not receive scholarly attention until the 1980s with the research carried out by Välikangas (1982; 1985a; 1985b; 2004), who undertook an in-depth analysis of déjà and its German and Italian counterparts used in interrogative contexts. In particular, Välikangas (2004) proposed that the pragmatic use of déjà as EFP was probably modelled on the German EFP schon ‘already’ (see (5) above; see also Coniglio 2006: 66). Välikangas’ proposal rests on data drawn on from two 17thcentury dictionaries, some late 18th- and early 19th-century quotations from German plays, and some 19th-century Swiss German glossaries, and it is also supported by

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

171

FEW (see s.v. déjà). His interpretive line has received considerable consensus in the research literature, especially amongst French, German, and Swiss etymologists. The ‘interactional use’ of déjà, as Hansen and Strudsholm (2008: 495) define it, has been touched upon also by Hansen (2002), who contrasts the interrogative use of French déjà with the interrogative function of the phasal adverb encore. Hansen argues that non-phasal meanings of déjà derive from the more typical, phasal ones, which are earlier (see Hansen in Chapter 8, this volume, and Buchi 2007 for a similar stance). Moreover, the use of dèjà in new pragmatic contexts is argued to be linked to the extension of encore in non-phasal environments, which seems to have preceded that of déjà and facilitated parallel extensions of meanings (Hansen 2002: 47). As far as their use in interrogative sentences is concerned, Hansen shows that both déjà and encore can be used as downtoners in questions. Bazzanella et al. (2005) considered the pragmatic value acquired by già as EFP within a broad study of the discourse values developed by the Romance adverbs derived from Latin iam, though limiting themselves to noting that già somewhat implies mutual knowledge between the speaker and the addressee since its meaning typically refers to a preceding situation or speech act (Bazzanella et al. 2005: 55, esp. fn. 23 and fn. 24). Cerruti (2009: 113ff.) pinpoints già as one of the morphosyntactic features which clearly define the variety of Italian spoken in the region of Piedmont. The use of già as a marker of information structure has also been commented upon by Squartini (Chapter 10, this volume, and 2013), who considers it to be a backchecking marker, i.e. a marker indicating the momentary lack of a piece of information which had already been assimilated in the speaker’s mind. Summing up, although some valuable observations have been made about EFPn in German, French, and Italian in recent years, they do not amount to a principled account. Research in this field often has needle-in-a-haystack dimensions, with occasional examples popping up in studies devoted to other related, but different, pragmatic issues, sometimes quoted as characteristic features of register or varieties being described but without going into any further detail. Squartini’s work represents an exception, in that it primarily provides an exhaustive study of Piedmontese EFP già from a synchronic and sociolinguistic perspective. This available pool of data and discussion, however, lacks a cross-linguistic and diachronic description capable of explaining the development and areal distribution of EFPn. Given the limits of this chapter, it is impossible even to attempt here to account exhaustively for the development and use of all European EFPn. Therefore, we confine ourselves here to providing a discussion of the diachronic development undergone by French déjà and PRI già. Before turning to the data, however, we first offer a brief survey of all of the EFPn attested in Europe, which will serve to frame the subsequent discussion of the case of contact-induced pragmaticalization at issue in this chapter.

172

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

9.2 French and Piedmontese Erinnerungsfragepartikeln in a European context In this section we survey the types of adverb employed in Europe as pragmaticalized EFPn. Three main sources have been identified. First, two different classes of phasal adverbs give rise to two corresponding strategies, which we have labelled iterative (e.g. English again) and inchoative (e.g. French déjà ‘already’), respectively. Alternatively, adjunctive adverbs are pragmaticalized for this purpose in other languages. We have subsumed them under a third category, ‘cumulative’ (e.g. Hungarian is ‘too, also’). Arguably, these three different classes of adverbs have their roots in semantically distinct paths of pragmaticalization and are motivated in terms of different semantic implications. The iterative category is the most widespread. The languages that fall into this group exploit adverbs that mean ‘again’, ‘once again’, ‘one more time’. The pragmatic motivation behind the use of these elements clearly rests in the repetitive meaning they convey, which arguably fosters an interactional use in terms of repetition (‘say it (once) again’). English again as EFP seems to be an elliptical version of the American English expression come again, ‘an off-hand slang quasi-interrogative equivalent of what did you say, I beg your pardon’ (OED, s.v. again, whence the following example is quoted), attested as early as the 19th century: (6)

American English ‘My chum has a pain in the small of her back and she confided in me, and after diagnosing the case—’ ‘Come again, please,’ said the old man, when she struck the college word. ‘Yo whiched the case?’ (George W. Peck, Peck’s Boss Book, 112, 1884)

Note, however, that again alone is already used in British English as EFP by Dickens. This suggests that the use of again as EFP has arisen independently in American English and British English. (7)

British English ‘You know Mr. Skimpole!’ said I. ‘What do you call him again?’ returned Mr. Bucket. (Dickens, Bleak House, LVII, 1853)

The iterative strategy is pan-Germanic: besides English, it is attested in German, along with other strategies, specifically in southern varieties and in Austria, in Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, Dutch, and Flemish (see also (26) and (27)), as illustrated by (8)–(12):

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già (8)

German Wie heißt er nochmal? (Heike Friemdling, p.c.) how call.PRS.3SG he DM.once.again ‘What’s his name again?’

(9)

Danish Hvad er hans what be.PRS.3SG his ‘What’s his name again?’

navn name

Norwegian Hva heter han what call.PRS.3SG he ‘What’s his name again?’

igjen? (Eystein Dahl, p.c.) DM.again

(10)

(11)

(12)

Swedish Vad heter han, What call.PRS.3SG he ‘What’s his name again?’

173

igen? (Suzanne Oberholzer, p.c.) DM.again

nu DM.now

igen? (Susanne Vejdemo, p.c.) DM.again

Icelandic Hvað heitir hann nú what have.name.PRS.3SG he DM.now ‘What’s his name again?’

aftur? (Jóhanna Barðdal, p.c.) DM.again

Interestingly, the iterative strategy is also attested in Finnish (13) and Estonian (14), probably under the compelling influence of Swedish or English, given that it is not used elsewhere in the Baltic area: (13)

Finnish Mikä häne-n nime-nsä taas ol-i-kaan? (Seppo Kittilä, p.c.) what.NOM s/he.GEN name.3POSS DM.again be.PST.3SG ‘What’s her/his name again?’

(14)

Estonian Kuidas su nimi how you.GEN name.NOM ‘What was your name again?’

veel DM.again

oli? (Helle Metslang, p.c.) be.PST.3SG

Given the transparent semantics of iterative adverbs, which straightforwardly entails the pragmatic inference of (requested) repetition, this pattern is very common also elsewhere in Europe, being attested in three Slavic languages—Czech, Slovak, and Croatian—in Greek, and in the Andalusian variety of Spanish, as reported in (15)–(19) below:

174 (15)

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola Czech Ještě jednou, jak se DM.more once how RFL ‘What’s her/his name again?’

jmenuje? (Daniela Urbanová, p.c.) call.PRS.3SG

(16)

Slovak Vaše meno, ešte raz? (Karol Hanulak, p.c.) your name DM.one more ‘(What’s) your name again?’

(17)

Croatian Kako mu je bilo how he.DAT be.PRS.3SG be.PTCP.N.SG jednom? (Ranko Matasović, p.c.) once ‘What was his name again?’

ime, još name DM.more

(18)

Greek to onoma tou pali /alli mia (fora)? (Dimitra Melissaropoulou, p.c.) the name POSS.M DM.again /other one (time) ‘(What’s) his name again?’

(19)

Andalusian Spanish Otra vez, ¿cómo se llamaba? (Carmen Aguilera Carnerero, p.c.) DM.other time how RFL called.PST.IPFV.3SG ‘What was her/his name again?’

Very interestingly, in the Belgian variety of French the phasal adverb encore ‘still’ can also be exploited in this pragmatic context. Note, however, that encore ‘can also express repetition and thus mean “again” ’ (van der Auwera 1998: 26): this is probably why it is employed as EFP to call upon the interlocutor to take the floor. The following question was addressed by a Belgian linguist to a French colleague who would have used déjà in this context, but nevertheless fully understood the pragmatic value of encore:2 (20) Belgian French Euh, on présente quand encore Hum present.1PL when DM.again les 50 après? (Benjamin Fagard, p.c.) the 50 après?

pour for

que je that I

te fasse you make.PRS.1SG

2 Moreover, both déjà and encore seem to be pragmaticalized as EFPn in the variety of French spoken in Québec (Monique Dufresne, p.c.).

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

175

‘Hum, when are we scheduled to present, again (or: can you remind me when our presentation is scheduled), so I can take care of the 50 occurrences of après?’ The second category of EFPn has its source in adjunctive adverbs that convey the notion of addition, thus entailing the pragmatic inference that more information is requested by the speaker. This is why we have labelled this category as cumulative. This strategy is quite rare across Europe: only Hungarian and two regional varieties of Italian use it, as (21)–(23) illustrate: (21)

Hungarian Hogy is hív-ják? (Ágnes Jekl, p.c.) how DM.too/also call.3PL.DEF ‘What do they call him/her again?’

(22)

Ligurian Regional Italian Come si chiama più? (overheard conversation) how RFL call.PRS.3SG DM.more ‘What’s his/her name again?’

(23)

Emilian Regional Italian Come si chiama pure? (Chiara Melloni, p.c.) how RFL call.PRS.3SG DM.also ‘What’s his/her name again?’

We now turn to the peculiar case of French déjà and PRI già, which fall into the third category of EFPn. The languages that belong to this third group exploit adverbs conveying the phasal meaning of ‘already’. This meaning traces back to an original inchoative function (see van der Auwera 1998: 35). Crucially in the present context, this strategy is restricted to the so-called Charlemagne area, i.e. to the core members of Standard Average European, namely West Germanic and Gallo-Romance languages (notably, German, French, and northern Italo-Romance varieties: see e.g. van der Auwera 1998: 824; Haspelmath 2001), and is rarely attested elsewhere in Europe. Besides French, the Piedmontese regional variety of Italian, German ((3)–(5)), and Swiss Italian (section 9.3.2), it is attested only in Slovenian outside the Charlemagne area: (24)

Slovenian Kako mu je how he.DAT be.PRS.3SG ime? (Gašper Beguš, p.c.) name ‘What’s his name again?’

bilo be.PTCP.N.SG

že DM.already

176

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

Figure 9.1 EFPn in the languages of Europe

Fig. 9.1 graphically illustrates the areal distribution of the three categories of EFPn just discussed. As can be noted, the iterative strategy is the most widespread in Europe. Cumulative EFPn are rare, and scattered across geographically unrelated languages and varieties. Before concluding this section, it is worth mentioning the case of mixed strategies, which are formed via juxtaposition of two adverbs pertaining to different categories.

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

177

Swiss German combines the iterative and the ‘already’ functions (25), while in Dutch the iterative adverb alweer ‘again’ occurs together with the cumulative ook ‘also’ (26); Swedish, Icelandic ((11) and (12), respectively) and Flemish (27) add to an iterative element the adverb nú/nu ‘now’. Note that the more basic and widespread strategy, i.e. the iterative one, is always present in mixed constructions. (25)

(26)

(27)

Swiss German Wie heißt er schon how call.PRS.3SG he DM.already ‘What’s his name again?’

wieder? (Georg Maag, p.c.) again

Dutch Hoe heet je how call.PRS.2SG you.SG ‘What’s your name again?’

ook DM.also

(al)weer? (Tineke de Jong, p.c.) again

Flemish Hoe heet je how call.PRS.2SG you.SG ‘What’s your name again?’

nu DM.now

alweer? (Daniël Van Olmen, p.c.) again

It must be stressed that the inchoative strategy is mostly confined to the southern Charlemagne area: EFPn are absent in Standard Italian and Standard Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian, i.e. in many Romance varieties, the only exception being Standard French and its neighbouring varieties spoken in Belgium, Piedmont, and Switzerland. This peculiar distribution hints at a case of language contact that requires diachronic evidence and explanation. In the next section we will discuss some relevant data, and will claim that EFPn in these languages emerged through a process of contact-induced pragmaticalization, whereby an ‘already’-type of EFP has gradually been replicated within a bounded pragmaticalization area under the influence of (Swiss) German.

9.3 French déjà and Piedmontese Regional Italian già In this section we focus on the ‘already’ strategy shared by German, French, PRI, and some Italian neighbouring varieties, and offer a comparative diachronic account on its areal distribution.3 The main claim we will make here is that the pragmatic enrichment undergone by già, déjà, and schon in terms of EFPn is due to a prolonged history of language contact between the languages and varieties under scrutiny. We

3

Slovenian, which also exhibits the ‘already’ strategy, will not be taken into account here.

178

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

will argue that this situation of contact resulted in a case of contact-induced pragmaticalization, i.e. a peculiar case of contact-induced grammaticalization (Heine and Kuteva 2005), whereby a new pragmatic meaning is created in a language x on the model of a more conventionalized expression in a contact language, by using the linguistic resources available in x but without copying the phonetic form of the contact-language item. Partially following Heine and Kuteva (2005), we maintain that the following conditions can be interpreted as clear pieces of evidence to argue for contact-induced changes:   

cross-linguistic infrequency of the item/construction at issue; intense historical contacts; earlier attestation of the item/construction in the model than in the replica language.

Crucially, all of these constraints are fulfilled in our case. First, in section 9.2 we discussed the infrequency of the ‘already’ strategy within a broader European context, where the iterative pattern is much more widespread. Notably, the remaining categories of adverbs, cumulative and inchoative, are equally distributed among the languages and varieties left, the former being attested in three ((21)–(23) above) and the latter in four ((3)–(5) and (24)). The rarity of the ‘already’ strategy in Europe suggests that the languages that have developed it are likely to have done so due to prolonged contact. As Heine and Kuteva (2005: 93) put it, ‘[It] is fairly easy to discover cases of replica grammaticalization when the model language has developed a grammatical category by using a conceptual source that is rarely encountered crosslinguistically and where exactly the same source is used by speakers of the replica language.’ Second, the languages under consideration are known to have had a history of intense contact. French and Piedmontese were even spoken as part of a bilingual system for centuries (section 9.3.2). French and German have also been in contact for a prolonged time; desja/déjà is found as an EFP in Duez’s 1664 German–French grammar, and some scholars (e.g. Knecht 1993) have suggested that the pragmatic value was acquired by the French adverb under the compelling influence of German (see Välikangas 2004). Duez’s attestation provides interesting evidence for the German EFP schon, which is used also in poetic and theatrical works at least from the early 19th century, as (5) above shows. Today, along with the aforementioned Välikangas (2004), some scholars maintain that EFP déjà is ‘wohl aus dem d[eutschen] schon ubernommen’, following the proposal firstly put forward by Wartburg (FEW 5, 28b, JAM note 13). We therefore maintain that we are dealing here with a case of contact-induced pragmaticalization from German to French (EFP schon > EFP déjà) and then, in turn, from French to a neighbouring Italo-Romance regional language, Piedmontese (EFP déjà > EFP già).

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

179

Third, our data show that the pragmatic function was taken over earlier by déjà than by its Piedmontese counterpart, già. In what follows we will discuss in fuller detail the results of our corpus-based investigation and illustrate the diachronic development of EFPn in the Charlemagne area. Before turning to the data, it is important to stress the functional intimacy that holds between già and déjà. Both these cognate adverbs are highly polysemic items exhibiting a comparable range of functions that consistently stem from the core meaning, namely the phasal one (Bazzanella et al. 2005; Buchi 2007; Hansen and Strudsholm 2008). This point is simple but worth emphasizing: adverbs meaning ‘already’ typically involve different temporal levels ‘la cui scalarità di durata [ . . . ] in relazione ad una “precedenza” variabile mette in gioco un sistema di attese spesso correlato alle conoscenze condivise’ (‘whose scalar duration relating to a varying precedence puts into play a system of expectations which are often interrelated with previous shared knowledge’: Bazzanella et al. 2005: 51f., our translation). Arguably, the semantic entailment that links a present situation to previous shared knowledge is crucial to the functional core of EFPn. To make the point in another way, it may be said that, generally speaking, the semantics of ‘already’ typically implies that a situation or event has (also) occurred before the time of speaking. This phasal meaning may have triggered and enhanced the conventionalization of an implicature according to which the answer to the question the speaker is asking was already available in her mind, and this is why the hearer is supposed to be able to recall it (along the same lines, see Poggi 2009: 175f.). In conclusion, the same kind of functional openness characterizes the synchronic and diachronic status of both déjà and già, and is likely to be at the root of the same processes of semantic expansion. We can also conclude that the parallel status of déjà and già forcefully enhanced the borrowing of paths of pragmatic expansion from one language to the other.4 9.3.1 Déjà, già, and Latin iam To make the claim for contact-induced pragmaticalization, since both French déjà and Piedmontese Regional Italian già derive from Latin iam, the possibility that the pragmatic use of both EFPn arose from the common ancestor must be ruled out. Note that the French form is prefixed by the Latin preposition de and is attested in texts as desia and desja (however, in Medieval French ja is also attested: see Hansen, Chapter 8 of this volume). 4 In order to have a contact-induced pragmaticalization, it must be borne in mind that only the new pragmatic sense, and not the form, must be borrowed from a language to another. Note that, despite first appearances, there is no phonetic transfer entailed in the borrowing of French déjà to PRI già: in PRI a perfect formal correspondent for déjà exists, namely di già, but di già does not exhibit an EFP function in any of the varieties of regional Italian we surveyed.

180

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

In her examination of Latin discourse particles, Rosén (2009) identifies some contexts in which iam exhibits textual meanings and functions as a marker of discourse organization (28) or as a marker of illocutionary force (29) (both examples from Rosén 2009: 330). Nonetheless, iam never shows an EFP function. (28)

Romano scutum . . . et pilum . . . , Romana acies distinctior, . . . facilis partienti . . . iam (‘moreover’) in opere quis par Romano miles? (XX Liv. 9, 19, 7–9) ‘the Romans with a shield . . . and a javelin . . . ; the Roman line was more open, . . . easy to divide . . . moreover, in defensive works who can match the Roman soldiers?’

(29)

iam, amabo, desiste ludos facere (Plautus, Menaechmi, 405) ‘please stop the joking already’

Since Latin is a corpus language, we cannot exclude that the absence of EFP-like iam is due to an accidental gap in the available body of data. Bearing this cautionary note in mind, however, it seems feasible to claim that the development of a memoryrecalling strategy is likely to be idiosyncratic to the daughter languages under scrutiny, since it is attested neither in the mother language nor in ancient stages of Romance nor, as far as our data can reveal, in the other daughter languages, such as Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Catalan, Sardinian, and Sicilian. In conclusion, the adverb meaning ‘already’ is infrequently used as an EFP in Europe and, more specifically, in Romance, and its pragmatic function cannot be traced back to Latin or earlier stages of French, Piedmontese, and/or PRI. 9.3.2 From déjà to già Although the use of EFP già seems to be very frequent in spoken Piedmontese as well as in PRI, no occurrences of già as EFP were retrieved from a survey of a sample of Piedmontese texts written between the 16th and the mid-20th century (see section 9.6 for a detailed list). The first attestation of già as EFP was reported by Välikangas (2004: 433) and comes from a Turin newspaper: (30) Piedmontese Regional Italian ‘Scusa Laura’, chiede alla moglie, ‘come si chiamava Sorry Laura ask.PRS.3SG to.the wife how RFL call.IPFV.3SG già quel pittore famoso . . . ?’ (Bruno Gambarotta, La Stampa, 17 Oct. 2003) DM.alreadythat painter famous ‘ “Sorry Laura,” he asks his wife, “What was the name of that famous painter again?” ’ However, we have many examples of French déjà used as EFP that date back to the early 19th century. By that time, the EFP was used in the spoken language: evidence

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

181

comes from the fact that it is also widely attested in historical corpora from the beginning of 19th century onwards, beginning with Hugo’s 1829 Le dernier jour d’un condamné ((3) above). As is well known, French was widely spoken in Piedmont by the upper, cultured classes, along with Italian and Piedmontese, at least until the late 19th century (Marazzini 1991; Telmon 2001). The fact that the EFP function of déjà was already well established in Standard French by that period may have created an opportunity for a contact-induced reinterpretation of PRI già along analogous pragmatic lines under the compelling influence of French. Two further facts provide further evidence for our hypothesis of contact-induced pragmatic replication. First, the same EFP strategy is attested in another ItaloRomance variety, namely the variety of Italian spoken in Switzerland. An example is provided below: (31)

Swiss Italian Assemblea generale, com’ è assembly general how be.PRS.3SG ‘General assembly, how is it again?’

già? (webpage title) DM.already

Although Weinreich (2011[1951]) clearly maintains that there is no German-Italian bilingualism to speak of in Switzerland, it has to be stressed that Ticinese, the ItaloRomance variety spoken in the Swiss canton of Ticino, is in contact with several varieties of Schwyzertütsch. Moreover, Ticinese is strongly in contact with the French patois. Therefore, little or no evidence supports a direct contact-induced pragmaticalization from Swiss German schon to Swiss Italian già. Instead, the process of contact-induced pragmaticalization involved Swiss German and Swiss French in the first place, and subsequently Swiss French and Swiss Italian. The presence of a similar EFP in the German contact varieties is likely to have reinforced and enhanced, rather than led, the process of pragmatic replication. There is also evidence for a wider area of employment of già as EFP, ranging from northern and western Lombardy (example (32), uttered by a professor of linguistics in Pavia) to Romagna (Francesca Masini, p.c. and example (33)). These facts further prove the productivity of contact-induced pragmatic replication of già: (32) Dove vi siete sposati, già? where RFL get.PRS.2PL married DM.already ‘Where did you get married, again?’ (33) Mi ricordo al liceo che mi era piaciuto RFL remember.PRS.1SG at.the lyceum that to.me was liked di che cosa parla già questo, che of what thing talk.PRS.3SG DM.already this, that

Campanella . . . Campanella an SCL.3SG.NEG

182

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola marcord? (forum user, Cattolica, Romagna, www.boulevardrock.it/public/ forum/viewtopic.php?f=1andt=5018andstart=45) RFL.remember.PRS.1SG ‘I remember that at the high school I used to like Campanella . . . what’s that book about again, since I don’t remember?’

Notably, in (33) the subordinate clause introduced by the polyvalent che ‘that/ which’—a typical feature of ‘neo-standard’ Italian (see Berruto 2012)—exhibits a case of code switching from Regional Italian to Romagnolo (italicized in the example). Code-switching is triggered by the presence of the polyvalent che, which is homophonous in both varieties at play here. Nevertheless, the linguistic environment, containing the regional EFP già, might have favoured the switch from one code to the other. Note that the function of già here is precisely that of a recalling device: in both cases, the speakers use an EFP to signal that they had previously known the answer, but they have momentarily forgotten it. In (33), for instance, the speaker is in some way embarrassed, being unable to remember a trivial detail like the city in which the hearer got married. Here, the EFP plays the role of reparatory technique by means of which the speaker adds emphasis to the fact that the question being asked is to be understood as an exceptional breaking of the participants’ conventionalized interactional routine, which has to be immediately repaired. While the emergence of già as an EFP in Lombardy is arguably due to the influence of the neighbouring Piedmontese, Ticinese, and their dialectal varieties of Italian, we do not have data to account for the development of già as an EFP in the Romagna. It is also difficult to suggest whether già might in future become an EFP for Standard Italian. We will limit ourselves to mentioning that some months ago a very famous Italian banking house aired nationwide an advertisement campaign in which, just before the name of the advertised brand, one of the celebrity spokesperson’s offstage voices asked Come si chiama già?, so that virtually everyone with a TV set in Italy has been recently exposed to an EFP use of già.5

9.4 Discussion: the development of EFPn between grammar and discourse In this section we broaden the scope of our discussion and reappraise the status of EFPn from a theoretical perspective. Our procedure has been to compare the pragmaticalization process undergone by adverbs reinterpreted as EFPn with Lehmann’s (1995; 2002) parameters traditionally associated with grammaticalization

5 But note also that the spread of già is limited today to varieties in which no competing EFPn were available: cf. the cases of Ligurian Regional Italian and Emilian Regional Italian.

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

183

TABLE 9.1 Parameters of grammaticalization (from Lehmann 2002: 110) Axis parameter

Paradigmatic

Syntagmatic

Weight Cohesion Variability

Integrity Paradigmaticity Paradigmatic variability

Structural scope Bondedness Syntagmatic variability

(listed in Table 9.1), in order to establish whether, and to what extent, their pragmatic function should be interpreted as a by-product of such a process. Very briefly, these parameters should be understood in the following terms. Weight, cohesion, and variability are all aspects of the autonomy of a given linguistic item, i.e. the degree of freedom with which it is used by speakers: the more weight and cohesion increase and the more variability decreases, the more grammaticalized a linguistic element results (Lehmann 2002: 109f.). More specifically, weight relates directly to the prominence of an item within a syntagm—its morphophonetic and semantic integrity and its relational scope over related elements within a construction. Cohesion refers to possible relations that an element establishes with other elements, understood in terms either of obligatory integration within a given paradigm (paradigmaticity) or of bondedness with other elements. Variability either points to optional uses of a given element, which can be freely replaced by competing ones (paradigmatic variability or ‘shiftability’), or to mobility of a linguistic item, which can occupy different syntactic positions and be freely moved around. Importantly in the present context, a host of literature in the past few years has repeatedly observed that both DMs and pragmatic markers (PMs) do not conform to these criteria cross-linguistically and do not fully develop along the lines of prototypical grammaticalization (see esp. Günthner 1999 on German; Günthner and Mutz 2004 on German and Italian; Ocampo 2006 on Spanish). The task of establishing the peculiar status of PMs in this respect has been a hotly debated issue very recently, and has been insightfully tackled by, for example, Diewald (2011a; 2011b), Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva (2011), and Traugott (2010c; 2011) (see Chapter 2). The burden of such works is not to prove that the development of PMs does not conform to the majority of the classical parameters traditionally associated with grammaticalization. Rather, these authors forcefully argue that not all linguistic items grammaticalize along the same parameters. Conceivably, different functions lead linguistic elements to develop different properties, and consequently the relevant parameters that can be applied in order to describe their status usually vary drastically. This point confirms the need for a distinction between two views of grammaticalization, namely ‘traditional grammaticalization’ as reduction and increased dependency, which takes place along the ‘classical’ parameters listed in Table 9.1,

184

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

on the one hand, and grammaticalization as semantic-pragmatic expansion, on the other (Traugott 2010c). This principled distinction goes hand in hand with the view recently taken by Kaltenböck et al. (2011), who argue that units of sentence grammar and units of discourse grammar are built on different principles of organization. To put it briefly, elements grammaticalizing at the sentence grammar level conform to Lehmann’s criteria and consistently develop new grammatical functions: under this perspective, grammaticalization is primarily seen as ‘a change in form, and grammar is typically conceptualized as syntax, morphology and phonology’ (Traugott 2010c: 272). By contrast, elements that acquire new functions at the level of discourse organization tend to contradict some of the above-mentioned criteria and are characterized instead by pragmatic strengthening and subjectification (cf. also Diewald 2011a: 375). Let us now take a closer look at the status of EFPn along the classical parameters of grammaticalization, in order to delineate which of them seem to be relevant in accounting for their development and which do not. Our aim is to show that some criteria do not apply to the syntagmatic or paradigmatic behaviour of such elements due to the specific function or categorial status of EFPn. First, we have noted that these pragmaticalized adverbs do not conform to either the syntagmatic or the paradigmatic aspects connected with the parameter of integrity in typical cases of grammaticalization. On the one hand, they do not show phonological reduction. Note, however, that this is essentially due to the fact that the adverbs under scrutiny are in some cases monosyllabic; in addition, we are still facing an early stage of pragmaticalization, and loss of phonetic substance typically correlates with later developments (see e.g. Traugott 1988: 407). On the other hand, pragmaticalized EFPn entail increase rather than reduction of scope, thus acquiring scope over the whole discourse and not only over the proposition. As we have remarked above, this fact is tied inherently to the specific function performed by these elements: indeed, many cases of increase of scope have been identified and highlighted in many studies on the development of clause connectives and discourse particles (e.g. Traugott 1995b; 2003a: 126–30; Tabor and Traugott 1988; Traugott and Dasher 2002: ch. 4; Giacalone Ramat and Mauri 2008; 2010). Last, EFPn do not undergo bleaching, but functional enrichment instead: what we have is a resulting situation of layering, i.e. coexistence of the new and the old meanings that perform two related but different functions (see Hopper 1991). These adverbs continue to be used as purely grammatical items, verbal modifiers, but are simultaneously recruited at the level of discourse, where they lose their referential temporal meaning and progressively come to encode non-referential, subjective meanings. Regarding the two features associated with the degree of cohesion shown by EFPn, it should be noted that these elements do not show either paradigmaticization or bondedness. This is due fundamentally to two different reasons. First, neither adverbs nor discourse particles give rise to paradigms: as a result, EFPn can even

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

185

co-occur (see (11), (12), and (25)–(27) above; see Giacalone Ramat and Mauri 2010 for similar reflections on interclausal connectives). Second, EFPn are not connected with other linguistic elements by an intimate syntagmatic relation. Processes such as coalescence, agglutination, and univerbation are therefore excluded. Last, let us consider the features connected with variability, which are of major concern here. EFPn typically show high paradigmatic variability. Some might claim in this regard that the motivation behind this rests on the specific function of these elements: DMs are by definition optional and exploited (or not) on the basis of the speaker’s subjective assessment of what is said and how it is said. Therefore, their pragmatic import results naturally from their optionality. If they were obligatory elements, they would be in some way expected and would not add additional emphasis. The fact that Standard Italian, Standard Spanish, Portuguese, Albanian, Romanian, Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Russian, and a number of other European languages or varieties do not have EFPn testifies to the great optionality of this functional category, which may be left unexpressed or may be alternatively conveyed by means of the past tense or of other types of adverbs (e.g. Romanian deci ‘then’ in sentence-final position: Alex Cohal, p.c.; (southern) Italian ma ‘but’ at the beginning of the sentence), or alternative devices (such as gestures and emphatic intonation contours). Regarding the degree of syntagmatic variability, i.e. positional flexibility, a recent line of research (Kaltenböck et al. 2011) suggests that PMs may be of the floating or the fixed type. The former is free in its placement, whereas the latter is largely restricted to one particular position. On the basis of the data drawn from questionnaires administered to a number of Piedmontese and Ligurian (Regional Italian) native speakers,6 and of the authors’ active competence in PRI and LRI, we can draw the conclusion that EFPn are of the fixed type, and when one or more constituents follow the verbal phrase, the sentence-final position is more acceptable for younger speakers, whereas for some older speakers it is less acceptable or completely ungrammatical. This means that adverbs pragmaticalized as EFPn seem to gradually undergo a process of fixation, being mostly confined to the sentence-final position, whereas they can still move freely in the sentence if used as phasal adverbs. Notably, the final position carries special significance: when systematically dislocated outside of the nucleus of the predicate, within the right periphery, EFPn broaden their scope and increase in pragmatic strengthening (see Traugott 1995b: 13 on the pragmatic import of extra-sentential dislocation). We have further noted in this respect that the older the pragmaticalization process, the higher the degree of fixation at the end of the clause. Evidence for this correlation 6

Given the peculiar sociolinguistic situation of Italy, Italian has no native speaker per se. Rather, there exist native speakers of regional varieties of Italian (Piedmontese Regional Italian, Ligurian Regional Italian, Lombard Regional Italian etc.: see Berruto 2003).

186

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

comes, for instance, from the fact that both again and déjà, attested as early as in the mid-19th century, have gradually lost the possibility of being moved around and are now more tightly attached to the final slot of the interrogative clause than già.7 Therefore, the more an EFP is conventionalized along a pragmaticalization cline, the more it tends to be accommodated within a fixed formulaic structure. This is a clear sign of increasing syntagmatic integration in terms of new syntactic constraints. Interestingly, this is the only defining parameter among those listed by Lehmann that can be fruitfully applied in order to describe the development of EFPn. We can draw the conclusion that loss of phonological substance, reduction of scope and semantic bleaching, paradigmaticization, increase of morphological boundedness, and obligatorification are not salient features in the pragmaticalization process which leads (typically phasal) adverbials to develop pragmatic functions in interrogative contexts. Arguably, the motivation behind the difficulty of applying these criteria rests upon the specific function and the morphosyntactic status of both phasal adverbs and DMs. Both of these functional categories are generally used to connect sentences or segments of the ongoing discourse, and this is why (as many linguists have repeatedly observed) the type of change which leads to DMs often contradicts many classical parameters of grammaticalization (see Traugott 1995a; Günthner and Mutz 2004: 98). While many of the above-mentioned features, as we have seen, are not relevant to capturing the nature of the process concerned, other factors are of the utmost importance. In fact, it has by now been firmly established in pragmatically oriented studies that discourse-structuring functions, pragmatic strengthening, and increased subjectification are typically associated with processes that lead linguistic elements to be recruited at the level of pragmatics (see e.g. Traugott 1995a; Traugott and Dasher 2002; Davidse, Vandelanotte, and Cuyckens 2010). Crucially, these features are all integral part of EFPn, (a) assisting discourse-planning and turn-managing, (b) marking the speaker’s stance, and (c) expressing her attention to the interlocutor’s social self. It is particularly relevant to stress in this respect that the elements recruited to these aims are predominantly temporal or phasal adverbs that explicitly modulate sequentiality in speech, overtly marking before/after relations among segments of 7 Välikangas (2004: 424) reports an example from Duez’s Dictionarium gallico-germanico-latinum dating back to 1664, where déjà (desja) occurs between auxiliary and past participle: ‘Comment a-il desja dit? Wie hat er doch schon gesagt?’ This testifies to a higher positional mobility at an earlier stage. Note, however, that in modern French déjà used as EFP occupies a more fixed position in the sentence, as reported by the Robert reference dictionary (s.v.): ‘il marque [ . . . ], en fin de phrase interrogative [ . . . ], le fait qu’une information appelée était connue mais oubliée’ [our emphasis]; see also TLF (informatisé), s.v. déjà). By contrast, già and più can occupy two alternative positions. This suggests that not all EFP exhibit the same degree of fixation. Arguably, fixation correlates with different degrees of grammaticalization: e.g. we have seen that déjà clearly seems to be more bounded to a given syntactic slot, has lost the possibility of being moved around, and exhibits a more formulaic structure than its Italian counterparts.

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

187

discourse. These characteristics can be better understood along the lines of a metonymic shift from temporal relations to textual relations, through an implicature that exploits inferences based on temporality between parts of the ongoing discourse (i.e. repetition, back-and-forth moves within textual sequences and shared contents, scalar interrelation, continuation and/or addition with regard to previous informative segments). Once co-opted at the level of discourse organization, adverbs carrying the meaning of ‘again’ or ‘already’ no longer relate events within a linear temporal chain, but instead negotiate turns and contents within the dialogic interaction.

9.5 Conclusions In this chapter we have looked at pragmaticalized adverbs functioning as EFPn in the languages of Europe, taking into account their possible sources and areal distribution, with a special focus on their development in French, Piedmontese Regional Italian, and German. We first described EFPn as a pragmatic means used by speakers to impose their own perspective on before/after relations holding between segments of the ongoing discourse. When the speaker cannot recall a relevant piece of information, and is thus incapable of successfully contributing to the communicative exchange, she uses an EFP in order (a) to get the content she needs to fill her accidental communicative gap, and (b) to convey her desire not to threaten the interlocutor’s face and, simultaneously, to save her own role within the interaction. As a result, the speaker manages the structure of textual relations by taking advantage of the interlocutor’s involvement to repair a momentary setback. Second, we have shown that in European languages EFPn are the result of different semantic implicatures that paved the way for polysemy of functions of the items concerned. Such implicatures have their roots in the original semantics of the source adverbs. We have seen that EFPn can rise from three different sources: (a) iterative items such as adverbs meaning ‘again’; (b) inchoative adverbs typically meaning ‘already’; and (c) cumulative elements meaning ‘more’, ‘too’, and the like. The former strategy is the most attested across Europe, being pan-Germanic and used in a number of other languages, while the others are much less widespread. While the ‘already’ strategy is peculiar to the so-called Charlemagne area, the cumulative strategy is scarcely attested, across few scattered European languages or varieties only. The conceptual motivation that underlies the employment of strategies (a) and (b) rests on the core function of iterative and inchoative adverbs—that of linking a present state of affairs to a previous temporal segment. The cumulative strategy is instead straightforwardly linked to the lexical semantics of the adverbs concerned (e.g. ‘add more information, tell me this too’). In section 9.3 we commented on the use of già since its earlier attestations as EFP, and discussed its relationship with languages with which PRI is in contact and which may be possible sources of these peculiar processes of pragmaticalization, namely

188

Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola

French and, indirectly, German. We argued that the pragmatic value developed by già in some Italian varieties has to be understood in terms of a process of contactinduced pragmaticalization, which resulted in the acquisition of the EFP value by PRI già due to language contact with French, where déjà had both the original phasal meaning and the EFP value as early as the 19th century. We also suggested that this is possible by virtue of both déjà and già’s tendency to acquire multiple and functionally equivalent functions, which makes them good candidates to undergo the same process of pragmaticalization. Lastly, we focused on some hotly debated issues: the peculiar status of such linguistic items once analysed through the lens of so-called ‘classical’ parameters of grammaticalization. By focusing on the case of EFPn, we noted that the process that leads temporal, phasal, or cumulative adverbs to acquire pragmatic functions as markers of repetition is constrained by some specific parameters which, crucially, appear to be different from those which characterize grammaticalization facts at the sentence grammar level (in the sense of Kaltenböck et al. 2011). Once reinterpreted as markers for discourse functions, temporal and phasal adverbs undergo functional enrichment and primarily exhibit scope expansion, increase in pragmatic strength, and subjectification. The only sign of increasing dependency shown by EFPn seems to be increasing fixation in sentence-final position, and this fact largely depends on the status of formulaic structure that these discourse markers gradually accommodate. Whether this process of functional expansion should be regarded as an instance of grammaticalization or of pragmaticalization largely depends on the line we draw between grammar and pragmatics, and this ultimately rests upon a principled choice for a definition of ‘grammar’.

9.6 Appendix: sample of Piedmontese texts 16th century Alione, Giovan Giorgio (1521), L’opera piacevole, ed. Enz0 Bottasso. Bologna: Libreria antiquaria Palmaverde, 1953. 17th century Anon, Quattro canzoni torinesi [1663], in Clivio (1974: 18–20). Anon, Historia della guerra del Monferrato (c.1613), in Brero and Gandolfo (1967: 202–8). Anon, La pastorella semplice (probably early 17th c.), in Brero and Gandolfo (1967: 133–40). Tana, Carlo Giambattista (probably end of 17th c.). ’L Cont Piolet (1st edn 1784), ed. Guido Davico Bonino. Turin: Einaudi, 1966. 18th century Calvo, Eduardo I. (c.1795–1804). Poesie piemontesi e scritti italiani e francesi. Turin: Centro studi piemontesi, 1973.

French déjà, Piedmontese Regional Italian già

189

De’ Conti, Giuseppe (1798). La Gerusalemme liberata in monferrino, cant. 1. In Almanacco piemontese 1972: 128–46. Isler, Ignazio (c.1730–88). Tutte le canzoni e poesie piemontesi, ed. Luigi Olivero and Andrea Viglongo. Turin: Viglongo, 1967. Pegemade (1777). Ël nodar onorà, ed. Gianrenzo P. Clivio. Turin: Centro studi piemontesi, 1971. 19th century Bersezio, Vittorio (1863). Le miserie ’d Monssù Travet. Available online at www.liberliber.it Garelli, Federico (1862–7). La gabia dël merlo. La vos dl’onor. Turin: Il punto–Piemonte in bancarella, 2003. Anon. Le ridicole illusioni (c.1801–1803), ed. Gianrenzo P. Clivio. Turin: Centro studi piemontesi, 1969. Invernizio, Caroline (1889–90). Ij delit d’na bela fija. Turin: Viglongo, 1976, 41–90. Pietracqua, Luigi (1862). Le grame lenghe. Turin: Il punto–Piemonte in bancarella, 2001. Pietracqua, Luigi (1883–4). Ij misteri ’d Vanchija. Turin: Viglongo, 1990. Mario, Leoni, Alfonso, Ferrero, Oreste, Fasolo, Federico, Musso, Titi, Livido, Mania Rèida, Capitani, Bolaro, Ciro, and Lapabreu Emile (1887–1905). Sernia ’d pròse piemontèise dla fin dl’Eutsent, ed. C. Pich. Turin: Centro studi piemontesi, 1972. Geymet, Ennis (1834). ’L Testament Neuv dë Nossëgnour Gesu-Crist. London: Moyes. Zoppis, Giovanni (1860). La paja vzin al feu. Turin: Il punto–Piemonte in bancarella, 2003. 20th century Brero, Camillo and Arena Adriana Girondo (1974). Legende popolar piemontèise. Turin: Il punto–Piemonte in bancarella. Frusta, Arrigo (1952–5). Fassin-e ’d sabia. Turin: Centro studi piemontesi, 1969.

10 The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance: From discourse grammar to illocution M A R I O S Q U A RT I NI

10.1 Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization As illustrated in Chapter 2, the intriguing debate on the boundaries between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization has many different facets including the role of pragmatic factors such as intersubjectivity and interpersonal stances in grammaticalization (Traugott and Dasher 2002) as well as the developmental mechanisms specifically characterizing pragmaticalization (conventionalization and direct ‘cooptation’ instead of the gradual integration process typical of grammaticalization: see Heine 2002; Traugott and Trousdale 2010; Mauri and Sansò 2011). However, as squarely expressed by Diewald (2011a: 376), most of this debate is biased by the intrinsic fuzziness of the boundary between grammar and pragmatics, which suggests that a part of the discussion might be purely nominalistic, ultimately depending on where the boundary has been preliminarily posited. Given these infirm foundations, any attempt at setting boundaries might end up in a void, and purely theoretical, exercise. What is needed, instead, is a more thorough and detailed knowledge of the evolutionary processes involving pragmatic markers, focusing especially on their intermediate stages. In particular, special attention should be paid to those linguistic units which, despite their pragmatic functions, are also characterized by morphosyntactic restrictions comparable to grammatical elements, thus putting the relationship between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization more crucially at stake. This is most prominently the case with German modal particles studied in this perspective by Diewald (2011b), but a comparable coexistence of pragmatics and grammar can also be observed in adverbs and particles which, while semantically belonging to the

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

191

grammatical domain of TAM meanings, tend to develop supplementary pragmatic functions, thus transforming a grammème into a pragmatème, as Buchi (2007) puts it. Typical representatives of this class of TAM markers, the Latin adverb iam ‘already’ and its Romance etymological descendants, have been extensively investigated in the last decade (Välikangas 2000; Kroon and Risselada 2002; Hansen 2002; 2008; Bazzanella et al. 2005; Buchi 2007; Hansen and Strudsholm 2008), especially as far as the development of pragmatic functions connected to tense and aspect is concerned, thus providing a rich empirical background against which further investigations might be fruitfully accommodated. In this perspective, what follows will elaborate on a comparison between the pragmatic uses of the French adverb déjà ‘already’ as opposed to its Italian cognate, già; but the comparative approach developed by Hansen and Strudsholm (2008) will be here pursued by coupling it with the wider comparative perspective of Bazzanella et al. (2005; 2007), which pays attention to ‘minor’ languages also including nonstandard and regional varieties. Instead of comparing the pragmatic use of French déjà with its cognate form in Standard Italian, as already done by Hansen and Strudsholm (2008), the analysis that follows will focus on the regional variety of Italian spoken in the north-west of Italy with special reference to ‘Piedmontese Italian’1 (an area which is possibly under influence of French contact). The peculiar pragmatic use of già in the north-west of Italy, albeit incidentally noticed (Välikangas 2004; Bazzanella et al. 2005: 55, fn. 23; Cerruti 2009: 113–14), has only recently attracted attention in its consequences with respect to the general Romance comparative picture that can be derived from the pragmatic uses of the descendants of Latin iam. Squartini (2013) has already highlighted the impact of northwestern Italian data in a synchronic perspective especially with respect to the debatable boundary between modal particles and discourse markers, while Fedriani and Miola (Chapter 9, this volume) interpret the use of northwestern Italian già as a contact-induced case of pragmaticalization, also assuming more extended contacts between Romance and Germanic. By elaborating on these available descriptions, my contribution will concentrate on the diachronic interpretation of these data as it can be inferred from the comparison of the two synchronic stages represented by French and regional Italian. Despite their similarities, the pragmatic uses of French déjà and northwestern Italian già do show significant differences in their pragmatic functions. So far unnoticed in previous literature, these discrepancies between two cognate forms

1 Note that what I will be describing here is the variety of Italian spoken in a regional area in the northwest of Italy (Piedmont), which should not be confused with the substantially different local Romance vernacular directly descended from Latin (‘Piedmontese dialect’). Using Maiden and Parry’s (1997: 2) terminology, the variety under scrutiny here might be labelled as an ‘Italian dialect’ (i.e. a local variety of ‘the standard Italian language’) whereas the Piedmontese dialect belongs to the list of the ‘dialects of Italy’.

192

Mario Squartini

suggest a possible reconstruction in the pragmaticalization cline in which the varied influence of different sub-areas of pragmatics can be recognized. The analysis will show not only that the pragmatic uses described here go well beyond those detected by Kroon and Risselada (2002) and Rosén (2009) for the Latin ancestor iam (which suggests abrupt discontinuity in the diachronic process) but also that the evolutionary process from ‘aspectuality to discourse marking’, as depicted by Hansen (2002; 2008) for the standard varieties of French and Italian, might be more specifically defined if northern Italian data are also taken into account. The next section will present the pragmatic usage of French déjà under scrutiny here by inserting it in the evolutionary process proposed by Hansen (2002) and Buchi (2007). Apart from setting the scene for the following analysis, this section will also point out some discrepancies in the description of the morphosyntactic behaviour of déjà as well as in its pragmatic usage. Trying to clarify these points, the analysis of French déjà will be complemented by describing the comparable distribution of northwestern Italian già, which will be analysed in section 10.3, where the data already presented in Squartini (2013) will be reappraised by focusing on the formal and functional features that French and northwestern Italian share. Attention will be mostly paid in section 10.3 to the role of information structure, on the basis of which a comparison to German modal particles will also be proposed. After a description of their similarities, the differences between French déjà and northwestern Italian già will be analysed in section 10.4, where a diachronic interpretation of the data will also be developed by exploring the role of information structure in the evolutionary process of pragmaticalization, at the same time claiming that the formal and functional discrepancies highlighted in the description of French déjà in section 10.2 can be explained if one assumes that northwestern Italian and French represent two different evolutionary stages of the same pragmaticalization process.

10.2 ‘From aspectuality to discourse marking’ in French déjà (Hansen 2002) In her thorough analysis of the semantic and pragmatic functions of French déjà, Hansen (2002; 2008; see also Buchi 2007) depicts an evolutionary pattern triggered by the meaning of ‘already’ as a temporal-aspectual adverb (1) from which various textual and pragmatic functions are derived including the use of déjà as a focalizer (2), and as a connective discourse marker (3), as well as its marginal and extremely rare use as a jussive pragmatic marker (4): (1)

Max est déjà là (Hansen 2008: 143) ‘Max is already here’

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

193

(2)

Déjà son visage me déplaît (Hansen 2008: 183) ‘His very face displeases me’

(3)

Déjà, il est bien conçu, son projet; et puis, je suis sûr qu’il nous fera beaucoup d’argent (Hansen and Strudsholm 2008: 493) ‘For one thing, his project’s well-conceived, and moreover, I’m sure it’ll earn us a lot of money’

(4)

Montre-moi déjà ce que tu sais faire! (Hansen 2008: 213) ‘Just show me what you can do!’

Consistently with its imperative use as a speech act modifier in jussive contexts (4), French déjà has also developed a parallel interrogative use in direct questions (5)—a special pragmatic function which had already been marginally noticed by Fónagy (1982: 68) and Välikangas (2004) and is more comprehensively accounted for by Hansen (2002: 46; 2008: 171, 213) and Hansen and Strudsholm (2008: 497), who elaborate on the common illocutionary nature of the imperative (4) and interrogative uses (5), considering them as ‘interactional’ extensions (on the interrogative use see also Buchi 2007): (5)

Quel est votre nom, déjà? (Hansen 2008: 213) ‘What’s your name, already?’

As described by Hansen (2002: 46; 2008: 171, 213), the illocutionary function of French interrogative déjà allows the speaker to signal that ‘the host speech act is in some sense premature if compared to what might have been expected’ (it ‘might be paraphrased as ‘I already have to ask you what your name is’). Further elaborating on the evolutionary process of Romance phasal adverbs, Hansen and Strudsholm (2008) include both illocutionary uses (imperative and interrogative) in a comprehensive semantic (and pragmatic) map in which these uses, along with the other discursive ones (2)–(4) mentioned above, are described as parallel evolutions deriving from the temporal-aspectual meaning of the phasal adverb ‘already’ (a case of polypragmaticalization, according to Buchi 2007): (6)

phasal > imperative

(7)

phasal > interrogative

In drawing general conclusions from these evolutionary processes, Hansen (2008) interprets them in a diachronic perspective in which the content (i.e. propositional) level represented by the temporal-aspectual (phasal) meaning of déjà evolves towards a context-level interpretation, where the TAM marker ‘already’, originally acting as a modifier at the propositional level, ends up as a modifier of illocutionary force

194

Mario Squartini

(‘downtoner [ . . . ] of directive speech acts’).2 Following the terminology adopted in this book (see Chapter 2), the illocutionary interpretation of these forms proposed by Hansen (2008) indicates that they can be properly considered ‘pragmatic markers’ in a narrow sense,3 which, as suggested in Chapter 2, include markers of social cohesion and personal stances as opposed to markers of textual cohesion (discourse markers). Consistently with her pragmatic interpretation, Hansen (2008: 213) also insists on the extrasentential syntactic behaviour of French interrogative déjà by remarking that it ‘is always right-detached with respect to the host utterance’, as is the case in the prototypical context in (5) with déjà occurring in questions where the speaker asks for the addressee’s name. In Hansen’s analysis this peripheral location is significant in confirming that déjà ‘scopes the speech act level’ (Hansen 2008: 213); but in fact an interrogative déjà is not necessarily dislocated (see also Apothéloz and Nowakowska 2013: 371), being also acceptable in a syntactic position internal to the VP, as this example from the web4 demonstrates: (8)

bonjour quel est déjà votre niveau initial (V, IV, III?) ‘hello what’s already your starting level (5, 4, 3?)’

Note that déjà ‘already’ in (8) cannot be interpreted as a phasal adverb, a meaning that would require a different predicate most typically indicating a transitional achievement (quel niveau as-tu déjà atteint? ‘what level have you already reached?’), which implies that, as in (5), in (8) déjà has a pragmatic interpretation. However, unlike (5), (8) demonstrates the possibility of syntactically integrating déjà within the clause structure, thus contradicting its interpretation as a totally extrasentential modifier. Apart from its syntactic position, another point which needs clarification has to do with Hansen’s interpretation of déjà as a pragmatic downtoner modifying the illocutionary force of directive speech acts, which also affects its definition as a pragmatic marker in the sense suggested in Chapter 2. This definition obviously applies to any occurrence of déjà in questions, but in some cases it seems to be too general. Take for instance the tip-of-the-tongue situation in (9): here, déjà also occurs in a direct question, but in this case the original semantic interpretation of ‘already’ as The labels ‘interrogative and ‘imperative’ chosen by Hansen and Strudsholm (2008) in (6) and (7) might be misleading, for they seem to refer to the morphosyntactic structures of interrogative and imperative sentences. They can, however, be easily transposed into pragmatic terminology with more direct bearing on the illocutionary level (directive speech acts such as questions and orders, as described by Hansen 2008: 213). 3 A broader interpretation of the term ‘pragmatic marker’ is instead the one proposed by Fraser (1996), who uses it as a hyperonymic cover label including discourse-cohesive devices (discourse markers) as well as markers of (inter)personal stance. 4 Most of the data analysed here were specially collected for the purpose of the present research by webextractions. As to the Piedmontese data presented in }10.3, some examples were manually recorded from authentic oral conversations in Turin. 2

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

195

a temporal-aspectual adverb indicating anteriority seems to be more directly relevant, even in this pragmatic function of déjà: (9)

Quel est déjà le nom de cet acteur qui se prénomme Robert et joue au côté de Marilyn Monroe dans Rivière sans retour? (from an internet site commenting on the mot sur le bout de la langue ‘tip-of-the-tongue’) ‘What is already the name of that actor whose first name is Robert, who acts with Marilyn Monroe in River of No Return?’ [the answer is: Robert Mitchum]

By using déjà in (9) the speaker signals that the requested piece of information belongs to common knowledge and, as such, used to be well known also to the speaker, who, however, has forgotten it (tu veux bien/vous voulez bien me le rappeler ‘Would you like to remind me of it?’, as paraphrased by Buchi 2007: 257). The difference with respect to a proper phasal use of déjà is only that, instead of referring to the temporal constituency of a single situation denoted in the propositional content, in (9) it is the speaker’s knowledge of the whole propositional content of the question to be marked as information ‘already’ given and shared by the speaker and the addressee. While in this description one can still recognize the original meaning of the anterior ‘already’ as a TAM marker, the occurrences of déjà seen above (5), (8) appear rather different, but in fact they cannot be fully interpreted due to the lack of sufficient contextual information. Both examples seen above might be interpreted as tip-of-the-tongue situations, thus implying the interpretation of ‘already’ as referring to the speaker’s previous knowledge, and this does seem to be the case in the description given by Hansen (2008: 213) in commenting on (5): ‘Typically, déjà will be used in this way in contexts where the addressee has already stated his name at some earlier point during the same speech event.’ But in (8) the occurrence of déjà immediately after a conversational greeting routine (Bonjour . . . ‘Hello . . .’) suggests that the speaker and the addressee did not previously have the opportunity of exchanging the information that is requested in the question. Nor does this piece of information seem to be sufficiently general to be part of common knowledge. However, the real informational nature of these questions cannot be found via speculations, and might be thoroughly verified only with more extended knowledge of the relevant context. Even though comparable to the examples seen above, the following context from the web seems to provide the information we need in order to ascertain the role of shared knowledge in triggering the use of déjà: (10)

Bonjour. Très bonne initiative mais je pense qu’il serait plus raisonnable que tu commence par te présenter et donner plus d’info déjà, sur ton cursus personnel au sein de ce nouveau parti. quel est déjà ton degré d’instruction? de quel écoles est tu issu? etc. etc. etc. ‘Hello. A very good initiative but I think that it would be more reasonable that you start by introducing yourself and giving already more information, on

196

Mario Squartini your career in this party, what’s already your educational degree? what schools do you come from? etc. etc. etc.’

The context in (10) makes clear that the addressee has not yet introduced himself (tu commence[s] par te presenter ‘you start by introducing yourself ’) and therefore those addressed by the speaker are ‘real’ informative questions and not ‘backchecking’ questions (Klein 1994; Waltereit 2001), which refer to previously given information (Erinnerungsfragen, according to Franck 1980 and Välikangas 2004; on this terminology see also Fedriani and Miola, Chapter 9 of this volume). Having more thoroughly described the context in (10), in which a backchecking interpretation cannot apply, we are now in a better position to analyse those cases in which, similarly to (8) above, déjà occurs immediately at the outset of a conversational turn after a greeting routine (Bonjour ‘Hello’). In particular, the extended context in (11), from the web, clarifies that in these cases too, a backchecking interpretation is rather unlikely. The speaker cannot refer to previously shared knowledge, for in the preceding message the other speaker (Speaker 1) did not provide that information, which, being very specific and contingent, cannot be considered as general world knowledge. (11)

S1: Connais-tu un moyen pr les [les vidéos] traiter? ou bien suis-je obligé de les

convertir? Le mp4 te paraît-il un bon format pour les convertir? Je ne veux pas nécessairement de la full HD, mais je ne voudrais pas malgré trop perdre en qualité non plus. S2: Bonjour. Quel est déjà le format des fichiers ? oui pour moi le MP4 est un très bon format. ‘S1: Do you know a method to process them [the videos]? Or should I convert them? Do you think that MP4 is a good format to convert them? I don’t necessarily want full HD, but I wouldn’t like to lose too much in quality, either. S2: Hello. What is already the format of the files? yes, I think that MP4 is a very good format.’ The set of examples seen so far demonstrates the varied usage of French déjà as a pragmatic marker in direct questions. In some of these examples, prototypically the tip-of-the-tongue situation as in (9), déjà qualifies the information as belonging to the speaker’s knowledge and therefore ‘already’ given (‘backchecking’ function). Through backchecking, the adverb déjà maintains a traceable link to its original phasal meaning, which is reinterpreted as referring to the speaker’s knowledge of the whole propositional content of the utterance. On the contrary, in other cases ((10), (11), and possibly (8)), déjà is not at all connected to the propositional content of the utterance, being instead a pure illocutionary modifier of the speech act in itself. As suggested by Hansen (2002: 46; 2008: 171, 213), even this general illocutionary function might be semantically connected to the anterior interpretation of déjà as a

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

197

TAM marker by assuming that it is the timing of the question to be signalled as inadequate (it ‘might be paraphrased as “I already have to ask you what your name is” ’). But this paraphrase clearly indicates that reference is made to the speech act with no link whatsoever to the propositional content, as is instead the case when the information is backchecked. As to their connections to propositional content, backchecking and illocutionary modification of the speech act turn out to be diverse pragmatic procedures, whose unifying feature can be found in their common occurrence in direct questions. These varied functional interpretations are also paired by the structural inconsistencies affecting the syntactic position of déjà, even though a direct correlation between extrasentential (dislocated) syntactic position and illocutionary function does not seem to apply. In any case, this complex distribution urges us to further investigations with the aim of ascertaining to what extent the varied behaviour of French déjà as a pragmatic marker in direct questions can be attributed to the coexistence of different pragmatic functions, in which déjà not only acts as a modifier of illocutionary force at the speech act level but can also be connected to the information flow as a backchecking marker. Being connected to metadiscourse functions such as information activation and retrieval, backchecking typically belongs to textual cohesion and should, in principle, be expressed by discourse markers in the narrow sense presented in Chapter 2. But, as also suggested in Chapter 2, management of knowledge and meta-knowledge (information state) belong to those pragmatic functions that crosscut the distinction between discourse cohesion and personal stance and can therefore be expressed not only by ‘discourse-cohesive devices’ but also by pragmatic markers of personal and interpersonal stances. The data that will be analysed below confirm the ubiquity of information state, which can be expressed by the same marker (northwestern Italian già) in its double function as a discourse-cohesive device and as a pragmatic marker. But the comparison between French and northwestern Italian will also show that, even in their narrow sense connected to (inter)personal stances, pragmatic markers are still rather heterogeneous, as they not only cover information state but also include illocutionary instructions. As will be shown, a differential analysis of French and northwestern Italian does not exclude influence by French contact on the linguistic areas of Italy which lie closer to the French-speaking area, but it also demonstrates that the French pragmatic use in direct questions is more extended than the northwestern Italian one. The most relevant point is that this differential comparative analysis confirms a dividing line between the two pragmatic uses highlighted above: the backchecking function typically surfaces in tip-of-the-tongue contexts, and the more extended illocutionary use modifies the speech act of the question itself, which is evaluated with respect to its adequacy in timing in the conversational structure, and can possibly be interpreted within a politeness framework along similar lines as those tentatively suggested by Hansen (2008: 213–14).

198

Mario Squartini

10.3 Backchecking in French and northwestern Italian In comparing Standard French and Standard Italian, Hansen and Strudsholm (2008) highlight the opposite distribution shown by these two languages in the pragmatic uses of déjà/già. While the interactional function in interrogative sentences described above turns out to be restricted to French déjà, its Italian cognate già has independently developed a different ‘interjectional’ function (Hansen and Strudsholm 2008), which Bazzanella (1995: 242) lists among Italian ‘discourse markers’, interpreting it as a signal of dialogic confirmation:5 (12)

‘Già’ confermai ‘ce l’abbiamo fatta’ (Bazzanella 1995: 242) ‘ “Already,” I confirmed, “we managed” ’

The metadiscourse nature of già in (12), whose function is primarily connected to textual cohesion (in taking the turn the speaker confirms what another speaker has just said), suggests that this interjectional use belongs to discourse markers not only in the extended sense adopted by Bazzanella (1995) but also in the narrower interpretation followed in this book (see Chapter 2). As a mechanism of textual cohesion, i.e. discourse marker in a narrow sense, the interjectional use of Italian già seems to contrast with the nature of French interrogative déjà as an illocutionary marker in direct questions (i.e. a ‘pragmatic marker’ in the sense presented in Chapter 2). But, apart from their theoretical interpretation, Bazzanella et al. (2005) have also shown that the comparison between these different uses might be extended to other Romance languages, which seem to confirm the tendency to a mutually exclusive distribution between interrogative and interjectional uses. In this respect, Spanish ya is particularly interesting, being well attested as a ‘metadiscursive conversational marker’ (Martín Zorraquino and Portolés Lázaro 1999: 4191; see also Koike 1996; Delbecque and Maldonado 2011), which can indicate a

5

The metadiscourse nature of Italian già is particularly apparent in those contexts (i) pointed out by Bernini (1995: 212) and also cited by Hansen and Strudsholm (2008: 496) in which it occurs as a proper discourse marker, having lost any reference to the propositional content of preceding utterances. In (i) già, instead of confirming the propositional content of what has been just said, is rather used to confirm the adequacy of the speech act represented by the question posed by S2 (Dove? ‘Where?’). Despite the promise to write, in fact S1 does not know S2’s address and consequently recognizes that the conversational move made by S2 is metadiscursively adequate. (i)

S1: Ti scriverò S2: Dove? S1: Già. Dove? ‘S1: I’ll write to you S2: Where? S1: You’re right. Where?’

Interestingly, già keeps here its original confirmative value (S1 confirms that S2’s question is correct), which, however, is shifted from informational content to metadiscourse modification.

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

199

confirmative interjectional response (13), whereas it does not admit the French interrogative use: (13)

A: Quiero que lo hagas ahora (Koike 1996: 271, fn. 6) B: Ya ‘A: I want you to do it now B: OK’

However, Bazzanella et al. (2005) have also indicated further extensions of this line of investigation to other languages not excluding vernaculars and regional varieties, which eventually might contribute to making the Romance comparison more finegrained (and problematic). Taking into account regional varieties is particularly relevant if one considers the ‘interrogative’ use presented above. As already noticed by Välikangas (2004), speakers from the north-west of Italy, especially those from Piedmont, seem to behave like their French areal neighbours in admitting già as an ‘interrogative’ marker. The similarity, also observed by Bazzanella et al. (2005: 55, fn. 23), is confirmed by the following example from the web (14), which directly pairs the French example discussed above (9). (14)

ciao come si chiama già la bassista di colore che suona con david bowie? mi ricordo che ho anche visitato il suo sito ma mi sono dimenticato . . . ‘hello what’s already the name of the black bassist who plays with david bowie? I can remember that I also visited her site but I forgot . . .’

The contexts in both (9) and (14) refer to a ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ situation, where the originally TAM marker ‘already’ does not indicate anteriority with respect to a given state of affairs denoted in the proposition, rather referring to the whole informational content of the utterance as already possessed by the speaker and momentarily forgotten due to a contingent extralinguistic fact (an accidental tip-ofthe-tongue). From a sociolinguistic perspective, the occurrence of this interactional già is perceived as a regional feature, as is documented from the web by the following stigmatizing attitude, which confirms the non-standard status of this phenomenon: (15)

si ma i torinesi che dicono ‘già’ quando non c’entra un cazzo ‘yes but those from Turin who say “already” when there is no reason whatsoever to do so’

Apart from perceptional attitudes that seem to locate this special use of già in the Turin urban area, the geographical boundaries of this ‘extravagant’ behaviour are still poorly studied and, apparently, variously interpreted also by local linguists. Whereas

200

Mario Squartini

the description given in Bazzanella et al. (2005: 55) seems to imply that the interrogative use of già should not be considered as a ‘regional’ phenomenon, possibly extending to the standard variety of Italian, Cerruti (2009: 113–14) explicitly lists it among the regional features typically characterizing northwestern varieties of Italian, and the same interpretation is confirmed by Fedriani and Miola (Chapter 9), who also document the areality of this phenomenon by extending the analysis to other pragmatic markers occurring in other Italian areas neighbouring Piedmont with the same function as French déjà. However, neither a more accurate investigation of the geographical distribution of this phenomenon in the north-west of Italy nor its areal interpretation is directly relevant here (on these issues see rather Fedriani and Miola, Chapter 9). What counts more in my perspective is rather a comparative functional interpretation of the interrogative use of French déjà and regional Italian già within the general picture of the pragmatic uses of the Romance descendants from Latin iam. Some morphosyntactic and functional features already mentioned in section 10.2 with respect to déjà are also shared by northwestern Italian già, but there are also some significant divergences. As to similarities with its French neighbour déjà, northwestern Italian già has been described as an extrasentential element, as is suggested by Cerruti (2009: 113), who mentions the prosodical nature of già as a parenthetical element in (16), consistently signalling it with two commas in his transcription of this example from a regional corpus of Piedmontese Italian: (16)

ma quando devono cambiare, già, Windows (Cerruti 2009: 113: oral corpus of Piedmontese Italian) ‘but when should they change, already, Windows’

Nonetheless, a parenthetical interpretation contrasts with the possibility of integrating già within the complementizer of a cleft question, where an intonational (parenthetical) breakdown would be impossible: (17)

com’è già che si fa a calcolare la media? (informal conversation, Turin) ‘how do you calculate (lit. ‘how is it already that you calculate’) the average mark?’

These data show that, despite being a speech act modifier, già can be syntactically integrated within the structure of the clause, which consistently mirrors the behaviour of its French cognate déjà. From a more general perspective, this might suggest that both French déjà and northwestern Italian già are gradually becoming more integrated within the nuclear syntactic structure, thus behaving like modal particles. As repeatedly pointed out in the literature on German Abtönungspartikeln (cf. Diewald 2006: 408; Detges and Waltereit 2009: 45 and literature quoted therein), ‘syntactic integration’ is one of the main defining features of modal particles. In this

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

201

perspective, what we are observing with French déjà and northwestern Italian già is their gradual evolution towards the status of modal particles, which, due to their transitional stage, still admit various degrees of morphosyntactic integration, including extrasentential addition to the right periphery but also full integration within the morphosyntactic nucleus of a cleft sentence (cf. Squartini 2013). If from a morphosyntactic point of view these regional Italian data confirm the same inconsistency detected in the French form above, which only allows us to speculate on possible evolutions towards the formal restrictions characterizing modal particles, the pragmatic analysis of northwestern Italian già turns out to deliver more conclusive results, which independently strengthen the general interpretation of interrogative déjà/già as modal particles. In a sense, the functional description provided by Hansen (2008: 13) for French interrogative déjà already elaborated on its possible role as a modalizer (‘downtoner . . . of directive speech acts’), which corresponds to some characterizations of modal particles as pragmatic markers that ‘crucially refer to participants’ stance toward speech acts’ (Waltereit 2001; Detges and Waltereit 2009: 54). As to the functional interpretation of northwestern Italian già, the tip-of-thetongue situation in (14) represents its prototypical use (Bazzanella et al. 2005: 55; Cerruti 2009: 113), which confirms the backchecking function already described above for the French form. This interpretation is also strongly suggested by the frequent syntagmatic combination of northwestern Italian già with a backchecking imperfect (Bazzanella et al. 2005: 55): (18)

come si chiamava già quel tizio? (informal conversation, Turin) ‘what was [imperfect] already the name of that guy?’

Interestingly, this modal usage of the backchecking imperfect is precisely the strategy that Waltereit (2001) considers as a Romance equivalent of Germanic modal particles. More generally, backchecking is connected with the ‘non-initial’ status of modal particles (Diewald et al. 2009). The presuppositional meaning inherently linked to backchecking also appears to be the functional core of interrogative già, which presupposes previous knowledge, thus qualifying the information requested in the interrogative speech act as ‘already given’. Obviously, enquiring about something which is not informationally ‘new’ is rather unusual (we usually ask about something we don’t know) but is contextually justified by the fact that the speaker has momentarily forgotten that piece of information. Even though not infrequent in everyday life, this is a pragmatically marked situation, which explains why the interrogative clause is morphosyntactically marked by a temporal adverb (già ‘already’) used in this context as a modal particle. The presuppositional meaning also justifies the non-occurrence of a backchecking già with polar questions (Cerruti 2009: 113; Fedriani and Miola, Chapter 9 of this volume) vis-à-vis its unproblematic combination with wh-interrogative sentences, which inherently trigger more presupposition than yes/no questions (but see also Apothéloz and Nowakowska 2013: 371 on French polar questions with déjà).

202

Mario Squartini

The ‘modal’ interpretation of a backchecking già, based on the degree of activation of the relevant information (‘given’/‘new’), is also consistently connected to previous analyses of Germanic modal particles (König 1997: 70; Waltereit 2001: 1398) described as expressing common knowledge (19a), which can be considered as ‘given’, either because they are shared by the speaker and the addressee or because they are directly derived from uncontroversial evidence equally accessible to the speaker and the addressee (19b): (19)

a. Die Malerei war ja schon immer sein Hobby. ‘(As you know), painting has always been his hobby.’ b. Dein Mantel ist ja ganz schmutzig! ‘But your coat is all dirty!’

In commenting upon these data König (1991: 174) mentions ‘evidentiality’ as a relevant semantic feature of German ja, which is especially apparent in cases of direct perception (19b). Being not compatible with contexts of direct perception, the French and regional Italian interrogative particles déjà/già cannot be considered evidential in a narrow sense. Nor could it be concluded that déjà/già mark indirect evidential knowledge, for they do not express inferences or reports. When a question is modalized with déjà/già, it is not because the speaker is reporting information which in fact the speaker momentarily doesn’t remember. What the speaker does is instead to signal ‘knowledge status’ by marking the information as ‘mutual knowledge’ shared with the addressee (Bazzanella et al. 2005: 55, fn. 23). In a typological perspective, ‘knowledge status’ (or ‘information state’, as it is dubbed in Chapter 2) has been recognized as a grammatical category paradigmatically marked by dedicated particles in some (mostly Asian) languages (DeLancey 1986; Choi 1995). According to Choi (p. 168), knowledge status denotes ‘the degree to which knowledge has been integrated in the speaker’s mind’, which implies a basic distinction to be drawn between ‘old’ and ‘new’ information. However, ‘knowledge status’ also includes different degrees of accessibility to the information ‘on the part of the speaker and the listener’ (p. 169), in which information that the speaker has just acquired from the present context (as in (19b) above) can also be included. As to backchecking, its connections to ‘knowledge or information status’ is particularly clear (the speaker signals the requested information as ‘old’ or ‘given’), thus suggesting that northwestern già, and also French déjà, when used in the contexts implying a backchecking interpretation, should be considered as markers of information state.6

6 More generally, I think that these data indicate the role of ‘speaker’s and addressee’s knowledge status’ as a significant factor in determining the interactional role of modal particles. Future research along these lines might also involve the role of mirativity, a highly controversial category (DeLancey 1997; Lazard 1999) that might be integrated within the more general notion of ‘information state’ as an extreme degree of novelty of the information which the speaker signals as a surprise for his/her unprepared mind.

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

203

As mentioned in Chapter 2, information state is one of those pragmatic functions that is indexed not only by discourse markers, which signal the textual structure, but also by pragmatic markers, to which ‘modal particles’ also belong as they express (inter)personal stances rather than textual structuring. Apparently, backchecking is what French déjà and northwestern Italian già have in common, which, along with their morphosyntactic properties (the tendency to be more and more syntactically integrated), makes them good candidates as Romance modal particles.7 Nonetheless, the problem remains of extending this analysis to include those French cases where a backchecking interpretation is not possible. As will be shown in section 10.4, this is the point where the comparative analysis becomes more intriguing, for in northwestern Italian these ‘inconsistent’ cases show a different behaviour, which will also permit us to formulate a diachronic hypothesis with respect to the pragmaticalization cline of the Romance markers descended from Latin iam ‘already’.

10.4 French vs northwestern Italian: from backchecking to illocutionary modification As observed by Hansen (2008: 213), French interrogative déjà typically occurs in contexts whose functional descriptions correspond to the interpretation that has been defined here as backchecking, which, as demonstrated in section 10.3, also represents the common functional ground shared by northwestern Italian già and French déjà. Nonetheless, as pointed out in section 10.2, French déjà is not restricted to backchecking contexts, thus implying a more extended pragmatic description of its uses in direct questions. Its varied behaviour has been underlined above in commenting on (10) and (11), and is also represented by the following French example, where, as in (10) and (11), a request to be reminded about previously known information does not seem to be possible, for the speaker and the addressee have just got in touch for the first time on the internet (the addressee has been enquiring about job opportunities). Lacking previous acquaintance, backchecking is obviously not applicable. (20) Quelques questions: quel est déja ton dîplome et quel est ton but en voulant faire ces formations? Ta réponse pourrait m’aider à te donner des pistes Cordialement ‘Some questions; what’s already your degree and what’s your goal with this education? Your answer might help me to give you some hints Best’ 7

See Coniglio (2008) for syntactic criteria defining modal particles in Romance.

204

Mario Squartini

Now, the interesting comparative point is that in similar contexts già would not be admitted not only in Standard Italian, where an interrogative già does not occur at all, but even in those varieties of regional Italian where it does occur as a backchecking strategy. This indicates a more restricted use of regional Italian già, if compared to its French cognate. More generally, this discrepancy between very similar distributions seems to confirm the impression that French interrogative déjà has an inconsistent behaviour as far as its connections to information flow are concerned, for it not only covers ‘given’ but also ‘new’ information; this is not the case with northwestern Italian, where only given information can be marked with già. In what follows, this functional discrepancy between French and northwestern Italian will be interpreted in a twofold direction. On the one hand, the different functional behaviour of déjà and già will be synchronically evaluated by accommodating it within the whole set of interactional uses characterizing ‘already’ in the two languages. On the other hand, a diachronic hypothesis will be proposed by connecting the different pragmatic behaviours of French and northwestern Italian along the same diachronic path. A synchronic arrangement of the data should not overlook the use of the Romance descendants of Latin iam as interjectional discourse markers, which, as mentioned in section 10.3, is typically allowed in Standard Italian and Spanish but barred in French (see Italian (12) and Spanish (13) in section 10.3 above). No differently from Standard Italian, the regional variety of Italian spoken in the north-west (more specifically in Piedmont) admits the use of the phasal adverb già ‘already’ as a confirmative discourse marker. Example (21) exemplifies a typical context of già as a discourse marker, whose regional flavour is enhanced by adding a preposed interjectional vocalization with a back vowel (oh già! ) not admitted in other regional varieties of Italian, where only palatal and low vowels (eh/ah già!) are possible with various confirmative nuances (Squartini 2013). In the dialogic context in (21) the interjectional oh già permits S2 to agree with what S1 has just said without further elaborating the topic: (21)

S1: Da quel dottore lì devi aspettare almeno due ore ogni volta S2: Oh già! (informal conversation, Turin) ‘S1: When you go to that doctor’s, you have to wait at least two hours every time S2: Oh already! = Right!’

As also emphasized by Cerruti (2009: 113), there is no substantial difference between the informational function of the discourse marker (oh) già and what is expressed by the modal particle già when it occurs in direct questions. Both signal that the information belongs to common knowledge shared by the speaker and the addressee. Common knowledge explains the confirmative function of (oh) già as a discourse marker: Speaker 2 confirms what Speaker 1 has just said, the information provided by the latter being part of given knowledge that Speaker 2 already possessed. Similarly,

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

205

shared common knowledge is what allows the backchecking function of già in direct questions. From this point of view, backchecking can be considered as the interrogative counterpart of confirmativity as it appears in a declarative context.8 With respect to the northwestern Italian distribution, in which different pragmatic uses (modal particle and interjectional discourse marker) are lumped together and expressed by the same marker (già), the French cognate déjà shows indeed a more selective distribution in only admitting the function as a modal particle in direct questions while excluding the interjectional usage as a discourse marker. Apparently, the double interpretation of northwestern già in the two domains of modal particles and discourse markers is made possible by the common functional ground represented by information state (given information and shared knowledge). On the contrary, the French form, having no interjectional use, is less consistent in expressing information state and tends to span illocutionary uses more extensively, not only as an interrogative marker but also having the imperative use (4) that, albeit obsolete and possibly unproductive nowadays, is documented in literary French (Hansen and Strudsholm 2008: 497–8). Significantly, northwestern Italian does not admit the imperative use, which would not be compatible with any interpretation as a marker of given information, thus confirming the role of information state as the main functional category steering all interactional uses of northwestern Italian già. Instead, the range of uses of French déjà seems to be predetermined by its general role as an illocutionary modifier of different directive speech acts including questions and requests, without requiring any connections to information state. Table 10.1 charts contrastively the behaviour of French as opposed to northwestern Italian by highlighting the functional domain that they have in common (interrogative use) as well as their differential features (the interjectional use, which is only possible in northwestern Italian, and the other illocutionary use as an imperative marker, which is exclusive to French). As represented graphically by its bridging position in Table 10.1, the interrogative use is a linking area which shares functional features of two different pragmatic dimensions (labelled in Table 10.1 as ‘illocutionary modification’ and ‘information state’), while the other uses (imperative and interjection) only belong to one single domain (the imperative use is a case of illocutionary modification, while the Standard Italian use of già as a an interjectional discourse marker has a confirmative function marking given information). In order to 8 Note, however, that, despite their functional solidarity, the interrogative and the interjectional declarative use of regional Italian già differ as far as their scopal properties are concerned. When occurring as a modal particle, an interrogative già scopes the speech act level, while in its use as a discourse marker già is characterized by an extrasentential scope which regulates and connects discourse chunks (Diewald 2006; Detges and Waltereit 2009). In this respect, the fact that regional già, when occurring as a discourse marker, is (optionally) complemented by an interjectional element (oh già) indicates that, despite the same interpretation with respect to information state, there is indeed a general tendency to introduce a formal distinction between discourse markers and modal particles (see Squartini 2013 for further elaboration on this dichotomy).

206

Mario Squartini TABLE 10.1 Romance ‘already’: pragmatic functions Illocutionary modification Language

Imperative

Interrogative

French Italian Northwest Italian

+

+ +

Information state Interjection

+ +

underline the varied distribution of these Romance markers, Table 10.1 also contrastively includes the behaviour of Standard Italian, in which only the interjectional use is admitted among the pragmatic functions of già charted here.9 Having detected the main dividing line between French and northwestern Italian, we are now in a position to go back to the functional inconsistencies pointed out in section 10.2 with respect to the behaviour of the French form. As shown above, French déjà not only occurs in backchecking questions, where it signals given information or commonly shared knowledge (see the prototypical tip-of-the-tongue situation in (9) above); an interrogative déjà also occurs in questions with no presuppositional information, where it simply marks the illocutionary speech act, possibly signalling (see Hansen 2008: 213) its incorrect or unexpected timing with respect to conversational flow. Both types of question—those referring to momentarily forgotten information and those posed at an incorrect point—are pragmatically marked, and this explains why they can be expressed by the same marker. Nonetheless, the selective behaviour of northwestern Italian, which only admits the pragmatic marker già in questions referring to given information and not in contexts characterized by awkward timing in questioning, shows that these two functions—albeit synchronically unified by the French form under the common pragmatic umbrella of illocutionary modification—should be considered as representatives of two separate subdomains, both in general terms belonging to pragmatics but referring to different functional areas (illocutionary modification and information state). The main issue that remains to be explored now is connected to the diachronic interpretation of these data, which will be dealt with in what follows by capitalizing on the distinction between illocutionary modification and information state that has been reached above on the basis of a synchronic comparison between French and northwestern Italian. Can a varied influence of these two different pragmatic 9 A more varied picture might be delivered by also charting Spanish, which, apart from the metadiscourse function of ya a confirmative marker (see (13) in section 10.3), also admits an imperative use (¡Cállate ya! ‘Shut up, now!’: Hansen and Strudsholm 2008: 498), but has no interrogative use. In this distribution only the two opposite sides of Table 10.1 are occupied, thus leaving the intermediate, and therefore pragmatically less univocal, area of the interrogative use totally void.

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance

207

subdomains also be detected in the diachronic evolution from the ‘content’ use of ‘already’ as a TAM adverb to its context-based uses as a pragmatic marker? Illocutionary modification and information state can both confidently be considered to belong to the vast realm of pragmatics, but in fact they refer to very different dimensions (interpersonal stances and information flow), which might suggest different roles in pragmaticalization clines. In this respect, the two synchronic stages represented by French and northwestern Italian in the interrogative uses of déjà/già permit us to tentatively propose a diachronic arrangement, which crucially elaborates on what French and northwestern Italian share by assuming that this common core represents a preliminary stage in the evolutionary process, while the more extended French behaviour might be indicative of later innovations. In this perspective, in which innovations are characterized by more extensive usage (pragmaticalization as contextual expansion), it will be assumed that backchecking, which is what French and northwestern Italian have in common, can be considered as a preliminary diachronic stage in the evolutionary process. Note that, apart from being the common ground of the two varieties, backchecking is described as the most ‘typical’ use of French interrogative déjà, which suggests that it might also be more firmly ‘rooted’ from a diachronic point of view and therefore older. As a consequence of this interpretation, we conclude that the general illocutionary function that we observe in the French examples in (10), (11), and (20) is due to an extension of the original backchecking use, eventually producing a French innovation which is not shared by neighbouring northwestern Italian varieties. Assuming this hypothesis to be correct, the following evolutionary path (22) can be posited, which extends Hansen and Strudsholm’s (2008) original proposal. As (22) indicates, reference to information state (backchecking) might be considered as an intermediate phase, with a subsequent stage corresponding to the current French distribution in which déjà is not restricted to backchecking, being compatible with various types of direct question as a more extended illocutionary modifier, which will be dubbed ‘interrogative’, following the terminology used in Hansen and Strudsholm’s (2008) reconstruction. (22)

phasal > backchecking > interrogative

Being connected to information state, backchecking can be conceived as still linked to the propositional content of the utterance (the degree of novelty of the propositional content),10 and appears therefore reasonable as an intermediate stage between content-level uses and fully-fledged context level uses (Hansen 2008), the latter being totally anchored to the illocutionary domain of the speech act and more extensively compatible with questions as illocutionary types in general. In this respect, evolving See Bazzanella (2006: 463, fn. 22) for a distinction between two different types of modalizers: those connected to social interaction and politeness and those linked to the propositional content (see also Bazzanella 2009). 10

208

Mario Squartini

from backchecking to interrogative implies that the connection with information state tends to be loosened as pragmaticalization proceeds, and déjà becomes increasingly connected to the speech act in itself, instead of exclusively marking the degree of novelty of the requested information. Ultimately, marking given information with ‘already’ is made possible by a retention of its original semantic function as a temporal-aspectual marker that denotes previous states of affairs with current relevance at a given reference time, thus showing in what sense pragmaticalization can be considered as semantically fostered by previous functions. As to the synchronic conclusions charted in Table 10.1, where it is shown that one and the same form (northwestern Italian già) covers two functions (interjectional discourse marker and interrogative modal particle) with a functional overlap permitted by a common category (information state), it turns out that, where the overlap does not apply (French déjà as opposed to regional Italian già is only used as a modal particle and not as an interjection), the backchecking function is less stable and the modal particle tends to evolve towards more general illocutionary domains. As briefly mentioned, Hansen (2008: 213) interprets the occurrence of French déjà in direct questions as a politeness strategy, which could also cover its backchecking function (‘asking for the second time might be impolite and face-threatening’). Since déjà is a speech act modifier, politeness is certainly not excluded in explaining its pragmatic uses. Nonetheless, assuming a generalized interpretation via politeness would not explain why regional Italian già does not extend to contexts such as (10), (11), and (20) by developing comparable pragmatic strategies. The different behaviours of regional Italian and French demonstrate that we need a unifying account (which might be connected to politeness) in order to explain the French extended distribution, but we also need a modular interpretation which could justify the more restricted interpretation (backchecking only) in regional già. The interplay between two different dimensions (information state and illocutionary modification) seems to provide us with a sufficiently flexible background in which the varied distribution of the data as reconstructed above can be consistently explained. As mentioned, the diachronic reconstruction in (22) is only speculative, being based on a dynamic reinterpretation of two different synchronic stages. Yet, even if this diachronic analysis were not to be confirmed by new empirical acquisitions, the comparison between French and northwestern Italian crucially demonstrates the differential roles of two different pragmatic dimensions (illocutionary modification and information state). What remains speculative is the hypothesis that these two dimensions can be inserted within the same diachronic cline. Alternatively, they might also be conceived as producing two separate diachronic processes in the languages analysed here, which would be represented as in (23) for French déjà and as in (24) for northwestern Italian già:

The pragmaticalization of ‘already’ in Romance (23)

phasal> interrogative

(24)

phasal> backchecking

209

But, even considering them as separate evolutions, the two processes depicted in (23) and (24) confirm the conclusion that illocutionary modification (‘interrogative’) and marking of information flow, being different subdimensions of pragmatics, can be reconstructed as different factors which independently influence pragmaticalization even in cognate forms. From a more general perspective, postulating pragmaticalization as influenced by different subdimensions seems to indicate that pragmatic modulations of illocutionary force should be more attentively kept separate from information structure, which, despite its pragmatic nature connected to the degree of activation of the relevant information in discourse (Chafe 1987; Lambrecht 1994), is also directly linked to the propositional content of the utterance, thus representing an intermediate area between pragmatics and grammar which (following Puglielli and Frascarelli 2011: 219) might be called ‘discourse grammar’. From this perspective, the data discussed above indicate to what extent ‘discourse grammar’ might play a role in pragmaticalization as a separate dimension independent from pragmatic illocution. However, considering the intermediate nature of discourse grammar between pragmatics and grammar, the data also suggest that a strict dichotomy between pragmaticalization and grammaticalization might be too rigid in accounting for cases in which information structure interplays within a diachronic process. Also in terms of intersubjectification (Traugott and Dasher 2002), it can be observed that backchecking and illocutionary modification are both interactional dimensions which involve reference to the addressee’s sphere, but in fact they seem to represent different dimensions of intersubjectivity in the dynamics between grammar and pragmatics.

10.5 Conclusion The comparison between French and northwestern Italian has confirmed the complex nature of pragmaticalization by demonstrating the influence of two different subdomains (discourse grammar and illocution), which, having common pragmatic features, might be confused, but in fact (once thorough comparative analyses are carried out) demonstrate their independence and might possibly be interpreted as different stages in diachronic processes. In this respect, a point that remains unsolved is connected to the morphosyntactic behaviour of the markers scrutinized here. In particular, it should be clarified whether the functional bifurcation between backchecking markers and illocutionary modifiers correlates with different formal restrictions in terms of syntactic mobility from peripheral post-sentential intonational

210

Mario Squartini

codas to a fixed syntactic position within the sentence nucleus. The data analysed so far do not show any strict correlation between form and function along these lines, but the point has not yet been fully investigated. Another issue that should be further investigated is the relationship between the diachronic interpretation proposed above and the possibility of areal influence. Assuming that the interrogative use of northwestern Italian già is due to neighbouring French influence, how should we interpret the restriction to backchecking? Is it diachronically due to the fact that, at the time of contact, the French form was restricted to the sole function of marking information state? Or, should we speculate that, because of sparse input in contact milieu, the pragmatic scope of the phenomenon was misunderstood and reduced by northwestern Italian speakers to the more limited domain of information state, which was also reinforced by the parallel usage of the same form as an interjectional discourse marker? Obviously these questions cannot be solved on a speculative basis; they require further investigation and supplementary empirical research shedding light on these issues specifically, which, however, will have to be accommodated within the general hypothesis of a contact-induced process of pragmaticalization, as is developed by Fedriani and Miola (Chapter 9).

11 Aliás: A contribution to the study of a Portuguese discourse marker A NA C R IS TI NA M AC Á R IO L O P ES

11.1 Introduction It is widely acknowledged that many discourse markers (DMs)—discourse cohesive devices, derived from adverbs, which signal how an utterance is related to the preceding discourse—in Romance languages develop from propositional meaning to textual or procedural meaning. The output of this process of semantic and pragmatic change, which typically involves syntactic reanalysis, is then a functional unit, a connective operating at the discourse level. The case of the Portuguese item aliás, however, does not validate the pathway of development synthetically presented above. The following diachronic study provides evidence that aliás displays an inherent polyfunctional behaviour throughout its history. Ipso facto it challenges the current standard view1 on the unidirectional development of DMs, from propositional or content meaning to procedural meaning. Therefore, the heterodox behaviour of aliás may be challenging in theoretical terms, since it questions the standard grammaticalization account of the development of DMs. The outline of this chapter is as follows: a brief account of the synchronic behaviour of aliás in contemporary European Portuguese is offered in section 11.2. Diachronic analysis of the item is presented in section 11.3. Finally, section 11.4 offers discussion of the data and the main conclusions of the study. The empirical data were selected from two online corpora, CdP (ed. Davis and Ferreira, 2006; www.corpusdoPortugues.org) and CETEMPúblico (www.linguateca.pt). The former provided the historical data, while the latter was the source of contemporary data.

1 See e.g. Traugott (1995b); Tabor and Traugott (1998); Traugott and Dasher (2002); Traugott (2003b); Brinton and Traugott (2005).

212

Ana Cristina Macário Lopes

11.2 Aliás: synchronic approach In two relevant dictionaries of the Portuguese language (Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa Contemporânea (Casteleiro 2001) and Dicionário Houaiss da Língua Portuguesa (Houaiss 2002), aliás is classified as an adverb, whereas in Cunha and Cintra (1984) and Bechara (1999), two reference grammars of the Portuguese language, the same word is included in the paradigm of the words marking rectification, along with ou melhor, isto é, ou antes equivalent to ‘or rather/or better’. This last classification emphasizes that the synchronic behaviour of aliás does not match the properties of prototypical VP adverbial modifiers. In fact, in contemporary Portuguese, aliás rejects cleft focusing constructions as well as focusing negation, and it cannot occur within the scope of focus particles like Eng. only. Further, it can never be an appropriate answer to wh-questions, and it cannot be contrasted within alternative interrogative sentences. In contemporary Portuguese, aliás connects two discourse segments, marking a semantic and pragmatic link between them. The segments connected by aliás may be propositions or phrases. See the following examples: (1)

Embora faltem ainda três dias de prova, a verdade é que o seu momento de forma é excelente, aliás como o comprovam os resultados alcançados na presente temporada. (CETEMPúblico) ‘Although there are still three days before the competition, the truth is that he is in excellent form, as, by the way, the results obtained during this period prove.’

(2)

Sugere ainda que seja elaborada uma circular, aliás já determinada pelo directorgeral dos Serviços Prisionais, que estabeleça as regras a que deverá estar sujeito o internamento em estabelecimento prisional . . . (CETEMPúblico) ‘It is further suggested that a circular be drawn up—by the way, the director general of prison services had already so determined—which establishes the guidelines for internment in a prison.’

The two examples illustrate the prototypical usage of aliás in contemporary Portuguese: the segments it introduces are parenthetical comments, or asides, which provide additional information related, but subsidiary, to what has just been said. In these kinds of context, aliás may be paraphrased by diga-se de passagem ‘by the way’. The information expressed in the fragment introduced by aliás is typically presented as already known, which can explain the high frequency of the connective in relative explicative clauses, as well as in comment clauses introduced by como ‘as’. This addition of a comment, presented as spontaneous and unplanned, may be relevant within a discourse strategy, for instance as a way of reinforcing what has just been said.2 This seems to be the prototypical synchronic usage of aliás, according to the parameter of frequency. 2

The potential argumentative functions of the comments introduced by aliás will not be explored in this chapter.

Aliás: A Portuguese discourse marker

213

A second common usage attested in contemporary Portuguese may be illustrated by the following example: (3)

Pode dizer-se que há na comédia duas comédias, que convergem para dois, aliás, três casamentos de três jovens da mesma família. (CETEMPúblico) ‘We can say that there are two comedies in one comedy, or better, three weddings of three young men in the same family.’

In these kinds of context, aliás marks a reformulation: the speaker rectifies her previous utterance, by rephrasing it. Thus, it is a rectification marker, equivalent to ou melhor, ou antes ‘or better’, ‘or rather’. To sum up this brief description of the two usages attested in contemporary Portuguese, aliás is a polyfunctional DM: it signals either a digressive comment or a rectification.

11.3 Aliás: diachronic study In this section, we will analyse historical data and check if the item follows a gradual pathway of development at different stages of the Portuguese language. 11.3.1 Aliás as an adverb of manner Aliás has its origin in the Latin adverb alias (Machado 1967), meaning ‘another time, another moment’. Quoting Machado, since Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder) alias has been used with the meanings of ‘in another way, on the other hand, from a different point of view’. According to Machado, the word was incorporated into the Portuguese language in the 16th century, as an erodite term, as in (4), quoted by the same author: (4)

Tomemos por valedores a Senhora e a Igreja, por cuja contemplação nos conceda o Senhor o que alias nos poderá negar. (Dom Frei Amador Arrais, Diálogos, I, 12; 1594) ‘Let us take the protection of the Lady and the Church, and may the contemplation of them give us what in another way the Lord might deny us.’

This example seems to illustrate a context where aliás is a VP adjunct, an adverb of manner that modifies the predicate of the host clause; it means ‘in another way’. It is an anaphorical adverb, in the sense that ‘in another way’ must be interpreted as ‘in a way different from the circumstances previously mentioned’. In (4), an exhortation utterance, aliás invites a reading that narrows or specifies its meaning, i.e. aliás may be interpreted as ‘in the opposite way, otherwise’. This invited inference is in my view calculated on the basis of a pragmatic heuristics,

214

Ana Cristina Macário Lopes

the I-Principle (principle of informativeness): ‘minimal specifications get maximally informative or stereotypical interpretations’ (Levinson 2000: 37). In CdP, several occurrences of aliás were found, from the 16th to the 19th centuries, in different contexts of use and with different functions. But none of these occurrences matches the synctactic and semantic behaviour of aliás described above (cf. (4)). The analysis, from now on, will be organized according to the following methodology: first examples are introduced in which aliás connects subpropositional segments, and these are followed by examples in which it connects full propositions. 11.3.2 Aliás connecting sub-propositional segments A number of examples can be used to contextualize the connecting value of aliás (see (5)–(7)). (5)

O pay de Samuel propheta.*Heli. Alias Eli. (Jerónimo Cardoso, Pequeno Dicionário de vozes eclesiásticas, 1569) ‘The father of the prophet Samuel. *Heli or Eli.’

(6)

Alleluya alias hallelluyah, louvai ao Senhor. (Duarte Nunes Leão, Origem da língua portuguesa, 1606) ‘Alleluia or hallellujah, praise the Lord.’

(7)

*Escozer, alias, *magoar|| Facere dolorem. (Bento Pereira, Tesouro da língua portuguesa, 1679) ‘Escozer, or *magoar || Facere dolorem.’

In these examples, all collected from old dictionaries, aliás connects two words, and functions as a metalinguistic or rather a metalexicographic tool, indicating that there is another way of writing the same word ((5) and (6)), or that there is another word, probably better known or more widespread in terms of the frequency of use, with the same meaning. In all the cases, aliás may be paraphrased by ou (de outro modo) ‘or (in another way)’. In (8) the marker has a different meaning. (8)

Parece que não vistes os versos de Vicentino Carvalhal, Frei Agostinho de Jesus, e os modernos de D. Félix de Artiaga que era Frei Hortênsio, o mais insigne orador de Espanha; e os de Tirso de Molina, alias Frei Gabriel Telez. (D. Francisco Manuel de Melo, O hospital das Letras, 1657) ‘It seems that you have not seen the verses by Vicentino Carvalhal, Frei Agostinho de Jesus, and the modern ones by D. Félix de Artiaga, who was Frei Hortênsio, the most famous Spanish orator; and those by Tirso de Molina, alias, Frei Gabriel Telez.’

Aliás: A Portuguese discourse marker

215

In (8), aliás introduces the very well-known pseudonym of the person whose proper name has just been mentioned: Tirso de Molina is the pseudonym of Frei Gabriel Telez. In this context, aliás introduces a gloss, adding some useful information for the reader, i.e., clarifying the identity of the person at stake. Aliás in this context may be translated by Eng. ‘alias’. It could be replaced by ou seja/isto é ‘that is, i.e.’, in Portuguese. The two following examples, even though quite distant in historical terms, illustrate another usage of aliás, i.e. the marking of a rectification move: (9)

Faça se ho foral per ho que estam em costume de pagar e que paguem os três rreaes cada hum peloo soldo que auiam de pagar Rodericus Rodericus . . . Menutado montes em carta yra alias liuro ffontes terra de penagoyam . . . (Notários, Inquirições manuelinas, 1496–1520) ‘Let the chart be done according to what people are used to paying and make them pay, each one, three ‘reais’ [ancient currency] for the wage Rodericus Rodericus had to pay. Minuted/drafted (in) montes [name of the judicial area] in letter or rather book fontes terra de penagoyam [name of the place].’

(10)

. . . não me importa se não ver se se tiram algumas das nódoas encardidas nas deshonradas faces do meu pobre paiz alias pátria detesto a palavra peralvilha de paiz. (Almeida Garrett, Cartas, 1835) ‘. . . the only thing that I care is to clean the dishonoured face of my poor country, or rather, homeland, I hate the affected word “country”.’

In these two examples, aliás introduces a corrective reformulation, allowing the paraphrase ou melhor, ou antes ‘or better’, ‘or rather’. Therefore, aliás has a discourse function, signalling an alternative formulation, that rectifies the previous one. There are affinities between the different meanings characterized up until now: aliás is used to signal that there is another way of expressing what has just been said. Therefore, it functions as a reformulative DM. Nevertheless, there are nuances and contextual modulations, motivated by the semantic content of the segments it connects and, most probably, by the discourse genre, or the discourse tradition, in which it occurs. 11.3.3 Aliás connecting propositional segments Some uses of aliás relate to its connecting value between two segments that are full propositions, as in (11)–(14). (11)

Nenhum repouso, nenhuma seguridade pode durar em nossa alma, senão lançarmos de nos a diversidade dos affectos, & paixões, . . . & os não redusirmos a hûa vontade, & a querer hûa so cousa, alias nunca em nosso coração avera saúde, e paz perpetua. (Amador Arrais, Diálogos, 1594)

216

Ana Cristina Macário Lopes ‘No rest, no security may last in our souls if we do not free ourselves from the diversity of affections and passions . . . if we do not reduce them to a single will, otherwise our heart will never experience health and perpetual peace.’

(12)

. . . como aqueloutro mau pintor que, pintando mal ao galo, era preciso pôr-lhe por cima o sobrescrito que dissesse ‘Este é galo’, aliás não seria conhecido por esse. (D. Francisco Manuel de Melo, A visita das Fontes, 1657) ‘. . . like that bad painter who could not paint a rooster without labelling the painting “This is a rooster”, otherwise nobody would identify it.’

(13)

E sendo certo, que da pouca, ou nenhûa utilidade do remédio se naõ pòde arguir a má applicaçaõ delle: segue-se que naõ vale este argumento cousa algûa; pois pretende provar erro na applicação, deduzido da pouca utilidade: porque ainda que as melhoras naõ fossem logo pregoyeiras do bom remédio; com tudo nem por isso deyxou de para ellas concorrer. E por conseguinte ter também parte na vitoria, que contra a enfermidade se alcançou; aliàs só os últimos remédios, que às enfermidades se fazem, seriaõ, os que levassem a palma, e o applauso da vitoria; o que está contrariando claramente à razão . . . (Joseph da Sylva Fernandes, Discurso apologetico cirurgico-medico, 1729) ‘We cannot conclude that a medication has not been appropriately recommended just because it has been ineffective; it is a null argument, for it aims to prove the error in the application of the medication on the basis of its ineffectiveness. Even if the symptoms of recovery were not the result of the medication, we could not draw the conclusion that the medication has not contributed to it, and consequently we cannot claim that the medication has not had an impact in the healing: otherwise, only the last medication taken by the patient would be applauded, which would be clearly against reason . . .’

(14)

E nem pio! Aliás é defunto. (Camilo, Maria da Fonte, 1885) ‘Not a peep! Otherwise, you will be dead.’

In all these examples, a similar construction is at work: p aliás q. The most likely paraphrase of aliás, in these constructions, is no more de outro modo ‘in another way’ but de modo contrário, senão ‘otherwise’. There is, most certainly, a continuum between these two meanings, because de modo contrário ‘otherwise’ is clearly a specification of de outro modo ‘in another way’. This specification is constrained by the semantic context. In all these cases, the first segment p does not describe a fact, but rather expresses a logical reasoning (11)–(13) or an injunction (14). To sum up, p denotes a possible situation, not a factual one. The propositional content of the second fragment q denotes what would happen, from the speaker’s point of view, if p were not the case. In other words, aliás triggers a negative hypothesis (if not p), an implicit proposition denoting a situation which is contrary to the one expressed in

Aliás: A Portuguese discourse marker

217

p. This implicit proposition is connected with q as its antecedent or protasis. The expressed proposition q is therefore interpreted as the apodosis of a conditional construction: p, aliás (if not p) q. The connection between p and q is thus achieved through the accommodation3 of a negative hypothetical proposition, whose verification would imply the occurrence of the situation described in q. At the discourse level, the utterance introduced by aliás in (11)–(14) adds a comment to what has just been said, typically reinforcing or validating it, as a rhetorical device. There is an affinity between the adverbial adjunct and the discourse connective. Aliás as an adjunct manner adverb has an inherent anaphoric feature: ‘in another way’ means in a way that is different from the circumstances previously mentioned, as we have already noticed. Aliás as a connective also has an anaphoric behaviour: it refers back to the previous proposition, changing its polarity. More accurately, it accommodates an implicit negative hypothesis, evoking the propositional content of p (p aliás q is equivalent to p aliás (if not p) q). Our historical data provide some empirical evidence concerning another usage of aliás in previous stages of the history of the Portuguese language, a usage that matches the prototypical function of the connective in contemporary Portuguese: the signalling of a comment. In fact, in the examples below, aliás presents the discourse segment it introduces as a parenthetical speaker’s comment about the main discourse topic: (15)

. . . pedindo a Deos que dilate sua sancta fee catholica nesta gëte como na demais, tirãdoa de sua ignorancia e cegueira em que vivë idolatrãdo, e que abra caminho a seus servos, pera que ho ponhã em effecto e que a estes como aos demais que temos dito metã polo bautismo no gremio de sua igreja. E sobre tudo, porque vëdo tanta gente e tam cega, sendo alias politicos, dem graças a seu redëptor . . . (Enformação das cousas da China, 1520) ‘. . . praying God to convert these people to the holy Catholic faith [ . . . ] freeing them from their ignorance and blindness [ . . . ] and to receive them into His church through baptism. And above all, seeing so many people so blind, these being by the way politicians, praise your redeemer . . . ’

(16)

. . . a confusão que (o amor desrregrado) introduz nas almas é um suplício horrível que eu me livraria bem de a descrever, depois das pinturas vivas que

3 Following Rossari’s (2007) analysis of the French connective sans quoi, we support the view that aliás accomodates an antecedent corresponding to the negation of p. The notion of ‘accommodation’ is borrowed from Lewis (1979), and may be defined as follows: “a proposition  is accomodated by an agent a in a context C if a assumes that  is required in C to interpret the discourse, even if  is not explicitly expressed” (Rossari 2007: 23).

218

Ana Cristina Macário Lopes muitos homens insignes fizeram dela. Não teria alias mais trabalho que o de copiar de Virgílio o retrato de alma de Dido . . . ! (Francisco Xavier de Oliveira, Cartas familiares, 1736) ‘ . . . the confusion that it (untamed love) brings to the souls is a horrible torture which I do not feel the need to describe, after the vivid descriptions many famous men have given of it. It would be sufficient, by the way, to copy the portrait of Dido by Virgilio . . . !’

(17)

Consideramos o juízo como cousa popular, ou somente como uma espécie de prudência, sendo aliás cousa mui rara; e olhamos para o entendimento como cousa mais altiva . . . (Matias Aires, Reflexão sobre a vaidade, 1743) ‘We look upon reason as a popular thing, or just as a kind of prudence, which is, by the way, very rare; and we look upon understanding as something higher.’

(18)

O testamento último não é obra de D. Fernando. Não o pode ser, porque nem mesmo por um egoísmo feroz (que aliás nunca manifestou em vida) poderia ser explicado. (Fialho de Almeida, Gatos, 1889–93) ‘The last will was not written by D.Fernando. It can not be, for not even a very cruel selfishness (which, by the way, he never exhibited in life) could explain it.’

In (15), aliás occurs in a first-person discourse. The speaker adds a subsidiary comment to what has just been said. In (16) and (17), still a first-person discourse, aliás introduces a digressive subjective comment to the previous statement. In (18), the parenthetical nature of the comment is even signalled by punctuation, i.e. the brackets, and its host clause is a relative explicative one. In the previous examples, aliás signals that its host discourse segment must be interpreted as a parenthetical comment.

11.4 Discussion of the data and conclusions The historical data show that polysemy is an inherent property of aliás, given the evidence that, ab initio, aliás displays a range of different functions, encoding different meanings. Table 11.1 illustrates this. It is also possible from the data to see that some of the old usages of aliás are no longer available in contemporary Portuguese. In fact, neither the manner adverb nor the negative hypothesis connective have survived.4 But some of the usages attested in older stages of the Portuguese language are still productive, namely the ones related to the functions of rectification and comment.

4 The connectives that at the present synchrony encode the semantic value of negative hypothesis are de outro modo and senão.

219

Aliás: A Portuguese discourse marker TABLE 11.1 Different functions of aliás

Manner adverb Reformulation/Rectification connective Negative hypothesis connective Comment marker

16th c.

17th c.

x x x x

x x

18th c.

19th c.

20th c.

x x x

x

x x

x

The main data-driven conclusion is that there is no basic meaning of aliás of which all the others could be seen as extensions, developed in different periods of the history of the Portuguese language. In other words, this research does not show a gradual and unidirectional path of semantic change, from the clause-internal adverbial to the DM, but polysemy ab initio.5 This conclusion does not validate the standard account of the development of DMs within the grammaticalization framework.6 The hypothesis put forward in this framework is that DMs are the outcome, or output, of a long-lasting and gradual process of change, involving regular clines, paths, or trajectories through time. More specifically, the hypothesis stresses that the direction of change, through time, is entirely regular: from content meaning (adverbial source) to procedural meaning (DM); and is replicated cross-linguistically. On the other hand, this gradual change involves ‘layering’ (Hopper and Traugott 1993), since the emergence of new meanings may coexist with old ones, during a timespan. It is not the purpose of this chapter to enter fully into the debate on the concept of grammaticalization, which is far from being settled. Nevertheless, aliás is clearly a recalcitrant case with regard to the key idea of a linear path of meanings ordered in a continuum, with transition periods where two interpretations generally overlap. The polyfunctionality of aliás seems to have been an inherent aspect of its semantic behaviour throughout its history. In other words, aliás encompasses different meanings and functions at each stage of the evolution of the Portuguese language, constrained by its context of occurrence and, presumably, by the discourse genre or discourse tradition at stake. Table 11.1 presents above an image of paradigmatic layering, and not a horizontal diachronic path of development with well-defined transitional steps.7

5

It is worth noticing that the intermediate stage between clause-internal adverbials and DM, pointed out by Traugott (1995b)—i.e. the sentence-adverbial stage—is not attested in our data. 6 The term ‘grammaticalization’ is used here in its broader sense. See Ch. 2 of this book for a thorough discussion of the two views of the phenomenon, the narrow and the broader. See also Traugott (1995b), Tabor and Traugott (1998), Traugott and Dasher (2002), and Brinton and Traugott (2005). 7 Estellés (2009) presents a similar case of non-standard development of the Spanish DM por cierto.

220

Ana Cristina Macário Lopes

But a more fine-grained analysis of the data allows us to highlight the family resemblances and the overlappings between the different meanings attested. This will be the objective of the following paragraphs. As an anaphoric manner adverb, meaning de outro modo ‘in another way’, aliás operates at the content domain of the utterance, contributing to its propositional meaning. In (4), it invites an inference that specifies its basic meaning (de outro modo ‘in another way’ > de modo contrário ‘otherwise’), calculated through a pragmatic heuristic based on the Informativity Principle put forward by Levinson (2000). This inferred interpretation involves the epistemic domain, because it foregrounds the speaker’s reasoning. The affinities between the invited inference and the meaning of the item in the construction p aliás q deserve attention. In this construction, the connective also has an anaphoric component, because it accomodates the propostion ~p (p, aliás (if ~p) q). Furthermore, the discourse function of aliás, as a comment marker, is already present in all the examples where the connective is interpreted as encapsulating a negative hypothesis (i.e. (11)–(14)). This means that, besides the semantic instruction it encodes, aliás also has, in these contexts, a discourse function: the segment it introduces contributes to the pragmatic coherence of the discourse, as a speaker’s comment on what has just been said. There are, however, other examples, (15)–(18), where the same construction, p aliás q, is totally deprived of the negative hypothesis interpretation. In these cases, aliás just signals that the segment it hedges should be read as a parenthetical and a somewhat digressive comment, related to the discourse topic. This happens in contexts where the semantic constraints that licensed the negative hypothesis interpretation are absent. In other words, the connective no longer encodes a semantic relation between propositions; it just signals the comment function of its host discourse segment. Our first cluster of meanings, involving overlappings and meaning extensions that co-occur from the very begining, may be schematically represented in the following way: (a)

Manner Adverb (aliás=de outro modo ‘in another way’)>Negative hypothesis connective (aliás=de modo contrário ‘otherwise’)+Comment marker>Comment marker (aliás=diga-se de passagem ‘by the way’)

It is possible to circumscribe the second cluster of interrelated meanings of aliás. The marking of a metalinguistic reformulation may be seen as a possible extension of the manner adverb meaning (de outro modo ‘in another way’ > dito de outro modo ‘or (saying it in another way)’) in specific contexts, namely the lexicographic ones. The extension involves a shift from the content to the (meta)textual domain. On the other hand, the rectification meaning (ou melhor ‘or rather/or better’) can be seen as a new extension of the reformulation meaning, based on a cognitive process of specification: in fact, a rectification is always a non-paraphrastic reformulation.

Aliás: A Portuguese discourse marker

221

This second cluster of meanings may be schematically represented as follows: (b)

Manner adverb (aliás=de outro modo ‘in another way’)>Reformulation connective (aliás=dito de outro modo ‘or (saying it in another way)’)>Rectification connective (aliás=ou melhor ‘or rather/or better’)

The main conclusions of this research can now be summarized. Comparing the synchronic behaviour of aliás with the historical data available, it is possible to conclude that: 









Two of the oldest attested uses of aliás have totally disappeared in contemporary Portuguese: aliás as a manner adverb and aliás as a discourse connective marking negative condition. The two other usages, aliás as a reformulation marker and aliás as a digressive comment marker, already present at the initial stage, are still quite productive at the present time. Therefore, (meta)textual and discourse functions characterizing this item have survived in contemporary Portuguese. The polysemy of the adverb aliás is attested throughout various stages of the history of the Portuguese language. In fact, from its first documented occurrences in the corpus until now, aliás has encompassed different functions, according to its linguistic context and, probably, to different discourse genres. Therefore, aliás displays an inherent polyfunctional behaviour throughout its history. The fact that aliás does not show a horizontal pathway of diachronic development calls into question the standard view of a gradual path of change from an adverb to a DM through time. Procedural and pragmatic meanings are already present in the oldest occurrences of the item, which challenges the standard hypothesis of a gradual and unidirectional change from adverbials to DMs. A network of related meanings and functions seems to capture the endemic polysemic nature of the item.

The qualitative approach taken in this chapter should be complemented by a quantitative study of the occurrences of each meaning in each century. From the quantitative results, it would be possible to find out the potential prototypical cores of the category in different periods of the Portuguese language, and to identify the more peripheral usages in each period, in terms of the frequency of use.

12 Romanian atunci and French alors: Functional and discourse properties M I H A E L A P O PE S C U

12.1 Introduction 12.1.1 Preliminaries This chapter describes discourse-pragmatic uses of the adverb atunci ‘then’ in contemporary Romanian, contrasting it with its contemporary French counterpart alors. The analysis derives from the framework proposed by Marie-Jeanne Gerecht (1987: 69–79). The contrastive approach will allow (a) analysis of the distribution and values of atunci in the spoken language and (b) comparison of the pragmatic functions performed by Rom. atunci, with its corresponding translations into French. There is a large number of studies of the pragmatic values of French alors,1 but this topic has hardly been approached by Romanian linguists.2 Research on discourse markers (DMs) in contemporary Romanian is scarce, probably because of the lack of a systematic electronic corpus of spoken Romanian. The Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy is working on the creation of a corpus, but so far only two samples have been published (CORV and IVRLA). All things considered, some methodological considerations regarding the corpus analysed here are in order. Most of the examples of dialogues come from spoken Romanian, and are taken from the two samples mentioned above; other examples and contexts were gathered through casual observation. Further illustrative examples for standard

1 See Bouacha (1981), Jayez (1988), Franckel (1989), Moine (1993), Hybertie (1996), Hansen (1997; 1998a), Le Draoulec and Bras (2007), and Degand and Fagard (2011); or the works of the Romanian linguists Păunescu (2002) and Coculescu (2003). Similar studies with a comparative approach have investigated the use of alors in relation to its counterparts in other Romance languages, e.g. Bazzanella et al. (2007) on French and Italian, and Molina (2009), and Bazzanella and Borreguero Zuloaga (2011) on French and Spanish. 2 Some remarks on the pragmatic values of Rom. atunci are mentioned in Zafiu (1989: 315) and in GALR II (2005: 728–37).

Romanian atunci and French alors

223

Romanian are taken from dictionaries (DA 1913–49; DLR 1958-2009; DLRC 1955–7; DEX 1998) and from the two volumes of the Contemporary Romanian Grammar (GA I, II, 1963, and GALR I, II, 2005). All Romanian examples are translated into French, and the whole corpus of examples is translated into English. 12.1.2 The context of research Similarly to alors (an agglutination, dating back to the Middle Ages, made up of the prefix a and lors, from Lat. illa hora ‘at that hour’: TLF), Rom. atunci derived from the Latin phrase *ad–tunc–ce ‘at that moment’ (see T/M 1985–9; DLR 1958–2009; DEX 1998). Its first written attestation dates back to the 16th century,3 when the adverb has a primary temporal orientation.4 In both French and Romanian the adverbs have a primary anaphoric function (expressing temporal anchoring), but are also indexical elements connecting sentences or texts (Gerecht 1987: 69; Coculescu 2003: 136). Nevertheless, as far as the French adverb is concerned, the original temporal value no longer represents the core meaning of the word, at least in the spoken language. In the two languages under discussion, these units are frequently used in argumentative structures, where they have a resultative, consecutive, or conclusive value, thus belonging to the class of consecutive connectives, together with Rom. deci ‘so’, astfel ‘thus’, de asemenea ‘also’, and corresponding Fr. donc ‘so’, ainsi ‘thus’, aussi ‘also’, etc. To simplify, atunci and alors index two discourse planes (Gerecht 1987: 69; Coculescu 2003: 136): the plane of utterances (p and q) and that of enunciation [E (p) and E (q)], conventionally represented by the schemata below (see section 12.2): Rom. p atunci q Fr. p alors q Rom. E (p) atunci E (q) Fr. E (p) alors E (q) In many contexts of use, both atunci and alors are polysemic. This polysemy often translates into polyfunctionality of the connectives, which have temporal values, but mostly consecutive, argumentative, and pragmatic ones on the basis of their conditions of use and of the context of interaction.

3 The first attestation of the lexeme was, according to T/M (1985–9), in Codicele Voroneţean (ed. Mariana Costinescu): vremile de-atuncea ‘those times’. 4 This primary semantic core of the Rom. atunci and of its French counterpart alors is the result of their quasi-redundant etymological structure. The presence of the deictic particle ce next to the time adverb tum (in the case of Rom. atunci) makes this Romanian DM similar to the semantic and morphosyntactic structure of the phrase which represents the etymon of the Fr. alors (a time ablative). In both forms under analysis, the initial presence of the preposition ad probably favoured the development of durative meanings.

224

Mihaela Popescu

This observation outlines the principle according to which DMs preserve their original core semantic values, but functions also develop around other marginal values.5 In this regard, Traugott has shown how temporal meanings progressively develop metadiscourse values (1989). However, given the prototypical polyfunctionality of DMs, it is often difficult to neatly separate semantic core values from pragmatic functions at discourse level. Moreover, markers can index different planes at once (see Chapter 2) both cross- and inter-linguistically, and these indexical values are subject to change both diachronically and synchronically (e.g. diaphasic variation: see Bazzanella et al. 2005: 77). Therefore, for both Rom. atunci and Fr. alors the semantic evolution implies, by and large, ‘a radial development’ (Hansen 1997: 170) from the anaphoric temporal meaning to pragmatic polyfunctionality (argumentative marker, consecutive/conclusive connective, or DM). However, Rom. atunci seems less pragmaticalized compared to its French counterpart alors, although it has acquired a high number of argumentative roles especially in the spoken language over the last decades.6

12.2 Functions of Romanian atunci and their translations into French alors 12.2.1 Atunci and alors as sentence connectives Romanian atunci and French alors can function as sentence connectives. In this function they connect two utterances made by the same speaker according to the following schema: Rom. p atunci q and Fr. p alors q. Two types of case can disambiguate the functions of atunci/alors within such a schema. 12.2.1.1 Atunci and alors with a temporal value First, Rom. atunci functions as a time marker meant to locate the events or actions on several temporal axes. It expresses a temporal relation implying: (a) complete simultaneity of the two predicates (1);7 (b) a succession of predicates which determine the situation of communication (2); (c) anteriority in relation to a point of reference (3); and (d) posteriority, or even partial simultaneity, of two events expressed by the predicates (4–6).8 All these values of Rom. atunci can easily be translated by Fr. alors.

See Bazzanella (1995: 232) on a similar topic in relation to Italian DMs. Bazzanella et al. (2005: 77) underline how discourse pragmatic features are subject to rapid changes within a relatively short number of years. 7 In this case, in contemporary Romanian atunci frequently co-occurs with the adverbs chiar or tot ‘at the same time’, which contribute to the reinforcement of the simultaneity relation between the two processes. 8 In such uses, atunci often appears accompanied by the adverbs când ‘when’ and/or tocmai ‘just’. In such occurrences alors is replaced in French by the phrases au moment où or en ce moment-là. 5 6

Romanian atunci and French alors

225

(1)

a. Rom. Adunarea va avea loc săptămâna viitoare. O să întâlnesc atunci mulţi prieteni dragi. (Gerecht 1987: 71). b. Fr. L’assemblée aura lieu la semaine prochaine. Je rencontrai alors beaucoup de mes chers amis. ‘The meeting will take place next week. I’ll meet many good friends then.’

(2)

a. Fr. Paul partit. Alors l’orage éclata. (Hybertie 1996: 28) b. Rom. Paul plecă. Atunci izbucni furtuna. ‘Paul left. And (right) then the storm broke out.’

(3)

a. Rom. Într-adevăr, alte gazete apărute [în decembrie ’89] sau rebotezate atunci în grabă, și-au uitat originea. (22/2007: GALR II: 670) b. Fr. En effet, d’autres revues, fraîchement parues [en décembre ’89] ou [bien] celles rebaptisées alors en hâte, ont oublié leur propre origine. ‘Indeed, other newspapers launched [in December 1989] or renamed in haste then forgot their origin.’

(4)

a. Rom. (Abia) atunci9 își va da seama că nu a fost niciodată fericit. b. Fr. (Seulement) en ce moment/alors se rendra-t-il compte qu’il n’a jamais été heureux. ‘Only then will he realize that he has never been happy.’

(5)

a. Rom. (Tocmai) atunci când închideam ușa, a sunat și telefonul. (GALR II: 480) b. Fr. [exactement au même moment] C’est exactement au moment où je fermais la porte que le téléphone s’est mis à sonner. ‘Hardly had I shut the door when the phone rang.’

(6)

a. Rom. Îl recunoşti ușor după felul în care își micșorează ameninţător ochii atunci când sunt puși în inferioritate. (Rlit./2004: GALR II: 480) b. Fr. On le reconnaît facilement de la manière menaçante dont il filtre ses regards lorsqu’ils se trouvent dans un état d’infériorité. ‘He can be easily recognized by the way in which he half-opens his eyes menacingly when they find themselves in an inferior position.’

By consequence, as temporal markers, the two elements create ‘par référence à un procès déjà énoncé ou à une situation connue ou supposée telle, une actualité du 9 To better define the temporal deictic frame of atunci, it often appears accompanied by certain prepositions, such as de, pe, or până. Thus, in the following quotation, pe atunci, paraphrased at the end of the text by the phrase pe vremea aceea ‘in those times’, reinforces the value of the imperfect indicative time: Pe atunci timpurile erau mai bune și oamenii nu erau așa de îngânduraţi ca acum [ . . . ]. Pe atunci nu se schia așa de mult, nici familiile simandicoase nu prea schiau [ . . . ]. Pe vremea aceea fumam (As/2003: GALR I: 427). The French translation reads: À cette époque, les temps étaient meilleurs et les gens n’étaient pas si préoccupés qu’aujourd’hui. [ . . . ]. À cette époque, on ne faisait pas beaucoup de ski, les familles de qualité non plus. [ . . . ] À cette époque-là, je fumais. ‘Then, times were better and people less preoccupied than today. Then, people hardly skied, not even well-to-do families. [ . . . ] At that time I used to smoke.’

226

Mihaela Popescu

locuteur et situe[nt] donc le procès dans le passé ou dans l’avenir. [ . . . ] Il en résulte un effet de simultanéité entre le procès référentiel et le procès modifié [par alors]’10 (TLF) and, in our case, by atunci too. In such occurrences, atunci and alors are obligatory, not for the grammaticality of the utterance—which will not be altered even if they are missing—but for the communicative content, which may be affected (if atunci/alors is omitted, the logical temporal sequencing remains implicit). Generally, the disambiguation of these anaphoric time deictics is accomplished by relating to the reference of the verb forms in the vicinity. In the examples above, we saw them associated with almost all the tenses on the past axis of time and also with future tenses, which contributes to their referential enrichment. The adverbs analysed acquire their function as time connectives used in narratives; atunci and alors oppose Rom. acum and Fr. maintenant ‘now’, respectively, the last two being deictic by definition. This functional and pragmatic behaviour of the two adverbs is similar. Nevertheless, atunci seems much more closely linked to its original indefinite time value (cf. the observation of Bazzanella and Borreguero Zuloaga 2011: 14 for the Spanish entonces), which comes into play mostly for the expression of anteriority relations. In such occurrences, other lexemes are used in French to make the temporal signification of the Romanian word more explicit. At the sentence level, Rom. atunci can be easily translated by French alors, when it is used in digressions, as in (7) (from the web): (7)

a. Rom. Pe vremea aceea, era un om iubit (atunci și oamenii erau altfel) și de aceea a putut face toate acele lucruri. b. Fr. À cette époque, il était une personne bien aimée (alors les gens aussi étaient différents) et c’est pourquoi il a pu faire tant de (bonnes) choses. ‘At that time, he was a well-loved man, (then even people were different) and that is why he could do all those things.’

In such contexts atunci preserves its anaphoric temporal value, but it also acquires a weak pragmatic value which is meant to introduce new information (belonging to the same speaker), at the same time indexing a shared knowledge between interlocutors.11 In this context atunci functions as a POP-marker (Hansen 1997: 174–5), which implies a reference to the speaker’s world of beliefs, thus contributing to the subjective modalization of the utterance. This function of Rom atunci is still strongly connected to its temporal value, and has already increased its degree of subjectification, which is at the origin of other pragmatic functions.

10 Translation: (they) set the speaker in (the present) time with reference to an already mentioned process or a known situation and set the process in the past or in the future. What ensues is a sense of simultaneity between the referential process and the process modified [by alors]. 11 Shared knowledge that the marker indexes include both the situational and linguistic context and the world knowledge. See Bazzanella (1995: 237).

Romanian atunci and French alors

227

12.2.1.2 Atunci and alors with a pragmatic value Both Rom. atunci and Fr. alors can be used also as sentence connectives in structures that can acquire a pragmatic value. This is the case for structures such as Rom. dacă p . . . atunci q or Fr. si p . . . alors q. In these contexts the connectives have a predominantly argumentative value. Similarly, both connectives show in other contexts the coexistence of temporal and pragmatic values, be they resultative, conclusive, or causal. Romanian dacă p . . . atunci q and French si p . . . alors q In the case of hypothetical structures proper, but also in that of pseudo-conditionals,12 Rom. atunci and Fr. alors tend to have anaphoric values.13 However, in such contexts the adverbs do not have a genuine temporal value, since p expresses a hypothetical situation, which represents an imagined or imaginable reality, distinct from the reality of the source-speaker. It is possible to interpret the structures under analysis as a succession of two illocutionary acts (see Ducrot 1972: 168). These structures can be interpreted as follows: (1) asking the interlocutor to imagine p; (2) within the situation of communication, the speaker X says q. Atunci and alors, thanks to their anaphoric value, make reference to that distinct reality represented by E (p). In such occurrences, their function is what Hansen (1998a: 172) calls ‘re-perspectivization’ or ‘re-orientation’ of the speaker towards her interlocutor. Therefore, atunci and alors instantiate at discourse level a strong logical and argumentative value, where the two adverbs do not make up a temporal reference point, but a notional one that could narrow, restrict, or even cancel the truthfulness of q (Coculescu 2003: 137). Atunci and alors function as focusing DMs, with a metatextual function. Their presence within the utterance is not obligatory, either syntactically or semantically; their pragmatic function lies in their connecting of two successive speech acts: (8)

a. Rom. Dacă ai vorbi mai tare, atunci toată lumea ar fi mulţumită. b. Fr. Si tu parlais plus fort, alors tout le monde serait content. ‘If you spoke louder, then everybody would be happy.’

(9)

a. Rom. Dacă nimic nu e adevărat, atunci se poate afirma orice. (Petrescu, Ultima noapte: GALR II: 732) b. Fr. Si rien n’est vrai, alors on pourrait affirmer n’importe quoi. ‘If nothing is true, then one can say anything.’

12 In the case of pseudo-conditionals, si p represents a discourse pattern within which q could become relevant. 13 In these contexts the adverb partially loses its semantic value, but maintains the procedural value of phoric reference to a preceding discourse. See Bazzanella and Borreguero Zuloaga (2011: 16).

228

Mihaela Popescu

The coexistence of the temporal and resultative, conclusive, or causal pragmatic value This intradiscourse function of atunci and alors, and its corresponding resultative and conclusive values, imply their use as causal markers. Such values represent an extension of the temporal and conditional values previously discussed.14 This function of atunci and alors provides q with the temporal and notional frame within which it can be validated, a frame also represented by E (p) (Gerecht 1987: 72; Coculescu 2003: 137). It is possible to say in this case that atunci and alors have a cumulative function based on both their anaphoric and temporal values. They refer back to E (p) and turn it into the situational context within which E (q) can be validated: (10)

a. Fr. Paul tira. Alors Pierre s’écroula. (Gerecht 1987: 73) b. Rom. Paul trase. Atunci Pierre se prăbuși. ‘Paul (aimed and) shot. (And) then Pierre collapsed.’

(11)

a. Rom. Afară plouă. Atunci nu mai merg la plimbare. b. Fr. Il pleut. Alors je ne vais plus me promener. ‘It’s raining. I won’t have a walk then.’

At intradiscourse level, the resultative markers atunci and alors acquire additional values, identifiable both at the interactive and at the cognitive levels, that is, through the discourse structure or within the epistemic domain. Thus, in (12) the markers are employed not only to introduce E (q) as a result of E (p), but also to express the indignation and, at the same time, the partial agreement of the speaker, who requires a reaction from the interlocutor: (12)

a. Rom. Am aflat că vrei să pleci. Ei bine! Atunci, poţi să pleci, domnule! Cine te ţine? b. Fr. On m’a dit que vous vouliez partir. Eh, bien ! Alors, vous êtes libre de partir, monsieur ! Qu’est-ce qui vous empêche? ‘I’ve found out that you want to leave. Well, then, you’re free to go, sir! Who is preventing you?’

At discourse level and, as a result of its argumentative force, Rom. atunci often plays a demarcation role.15 For example, in (13), (14), and (15) atunci introduces the

14 This statement should be corroborated with the idea according to which the conclusive aspect, to the same degree as the resultative one, clearly express the completion of an action. At the same time, as Mellet (2003: 92) notes: ‘L’inférence de la causalité suppose [elle aussi] de fait l’existence préalable d’un “schéma cognitif ” [ . . . ] ou d’un scénario pragmatique [ . . . ], bref, d’un “topos” associant à notre connaissance de monde certaines relations rhétoriques et logiques en l’occurrence des relations de cause à effet.’ 15 Such demarcation value of atunci is already attested in Old Romanian. Preserving its temporal value, atunci also has an argumentative nuance, being causal or consecutive in nature: Atuncea și Ștefan-vodă, deacă prinse de veste că s-au risipit oștile Ieremiei-vodă, el ceru de la Batâr, oști ajutor (Letopiseţul

Romanian atunci and French alors

229

conclusion of a whole argumentative construction. But in all these examples the metatextual function co-occurs with other secondary values (i.e. reproach in (13), satisfaction in (14), urging to reaction in (15)). These values depend to a high degree on the communicative context (intonation, pauses, word order). (13)

a. Rom. Ai mâncat, ai cântat, te-ai odihnit, atunci, ce mai vrei? (www) b. Fr. Tu as mangé, tu as chanté, tu t’es reposé, alors/donc qu’est-ce que tu veux encore? ‘You’ve eaten, you’ve sung, you’ve rested, so what else do you want?’

(14)

a. Rom. Cei care vor mușca momeala, vor primi în loc de bani un răspuns nesatisfăcător. Atunci să vezi procese și falimente! (www) b. Fr. Ceux qui avaleront l’hameçon, recevront au lieu de l’argent, seulement une réponse insatisfaisante. Combien de procès et des faillites tu verras alors! ‘Those who take the bait will get an unsatisfactory answer instead of money. Then you will see lawsuits and bankruptcies!’

(15)

a. Rom. Să zicem că nu ai bani şi nu ştii să faci prea multe. Ce poţi face atunci? (www) b. Fr. Supposons que tu es sans argent et que tu ne sais pas faire beaucoup de choses. Que peux-tu faire alors? ‘Let’s say you’ve got no money and there isn’t much you are capable of. Then what can you do?’

As a demarcation element, atunci appears most frequently accompanied by și (cf. French et alors):16 (16)

a. Rom. Sunt și persoane care bănuiesc că o duc bine, sunt liniștite și atunci toate aceste tranzite nu vin pe un fond biografic încărcat. (www) b. Fr. Il y a aussi des gens qui considèrent qu’ils vivent bien, qui sont tranquilles et alors tous ces changements ne surviennent pas sur un fond biographique de tension. ‘There are people who see themselves as getting on all right, who are calm and so then these changes don’t take place against a troubled life history.’

In conclusion, intra-discursively, atunci, like alors, acquires pragmatic values and functions as a relation index between q (the utterance introduced) and p (a second

Cantacuzinesc, 126): ‘Then, in his turn, Prince Steven, after finding out that Prince Ieremia’s army scattered, asked for help from Batar.’ 16

I would like to thank Professor Maria Iliescu, who pointed out that in this case the difference between atunci and alors consists in the fact that, in Romanian ‘the pair’ of atunci, i.e. apoi, is equally strong, exactly as in Italian, compared to the French pair alors–puis (et puis).

230

Mihaela Popescu

utterance from the same speaking source). Such a relation can be affective, logical, or argumentative. Because of the polyfunctionality acquired by the adverbs, it is often difficult to separate their temporal, argumentative, and pragmatic values. 12.2.2 Atunci and alors as discourse markers At inter-discourse level, atunci et alors appear solely as part of the schema ‘E then E’, Rom. E (p) atunci E (q) and Fr. E (p) alors E (q). In such contexts the adverbs serve to define the position:17 (a) of the speakers in relation to their interlocutors’ reply, i.e. of two explicit utterances: Rom. E (p) atunci E (q) and Fr. E (p) alors E (q); (b) of the contexts of interaction in relation to an utterance: Rom. Sit (p) atunci E (q) and Fr. Sit (p) alors E (q); (c) of some knowledge shared by the interlocutors in relation to the utterance made by one of them: Rom. [knowing] (p) atunci E (q) and Fr. [knowing] (p) alors E (q). The pragmatic value of atunci derives from the fact that it establishes connections between two speech acts. In such occurrences, it can be absent without affecting the grammaticality of the utterance or its meaning. In most cases atunci is marked at suprasegmental level by a pause or by a specific intonation; it can be replaced by other markers with similar functions and it can collocate with other pragmatic elements, such as păi ‘but’, bine ‘OK, yes, but’, ei (bine) ‘well’, zău ‘really, indeed’. Regarding the pragmatic functions of atunci and its corresponding French translation, it is possible to say that the marker can function as both pragmatic and discourse marker, thus performing interactive (see cases (a) and (c)) and metatextual functions (discourse-structuring values, as in cases of type (b)). Like the French lexeme, as a result of its conclusive value, atunci appears most frequently in examples such as (17), where it links two speech acts: B’s response to A’s question, which represents the result of that response. This situation often arises in structures which ‘turn off a conversation’ and which express either the speaker’s agreement, a request for confirmation, or simply a reaction on the part of the interlocutor. Atunci can be found in initial or final position, and it is frequently used with an interrogative intonation which reflects a reinforcement of the pragmatic function of the interrogative value of the dialogue. At the epistemic level, this intonation subjectivizes the utterance, outlining the doubts or the confidence of the speaker in relation to the propositional content expressed by the interlocutor: (17)

a. Rom. A: Și mama ta știe? B: Nu. A: Atunci de ce te-ai înroșit? (www)

17

See Gerecht (1987: 69); Coculescu (2003: 137–8).

Romanian atunci and French alors

231

b. Fr.

A: Et ta mère, elle le sait? B: Non. A: Alors pourquoi tu as rougis? ‘A: And your mother, does she know that? B: No. A: Then why have you blushed?’

(18)

a. Rom. A: Vrei să știi adevărul? B: Aș vrea. A: Atunci întreab-o pe Irina!/Întreab-o atunci pe Irina! (www) b. Fr.

A: Veux-tu savoir la vérité? B: Je veux. A: Alors demande-le à Irina! ‘A: Would you like to know the truth? B: Yes, I would. A: Then ask Irina!/Ask Irina then!’

Similarly, in closing sequences as in (19), both Rom. atunci and Fr. alors have a consecutive value and express adhesion on the part of the speaker B in relation to the utterance stated by A: (19)

a. Rom. A: Nu pot mâine. Mâine am examen. B: Atunci, baftă! (www) b. Fr.

A: Je ne peux pas demain. Demain j’ai un examen. B: Bon alors, bonne chance! ‘A: I can’t tomorrow. I have an exam tomorrow. B: Good luck, then!’

Frequently, in such occurrences (see (20)), both Rom. atunci and Fr. alors co-occur with other DMs, such as Rom. păi, bine, ei, zău or Fr. euh!, bon, donc: (20)

a. Rom. A: Toată averea asta va rămâne acestui băiat beţivan pe care-l au. B: Da. A: Păi atunci de-aia vrea el să doneze colecţia . . . (CORV 71: GALR II: 838) A: Toute cette fortune reviendra à leur ivrogne de fils. B: Oui. A: Mais alors c’est pour cela qu’il veut faire une donation de la collection . . . ‘A: All this fortune will be inherited by this drunkard of a boy that they have. B: Indeed. A: (Well), then that’s why he wants to donate the collection.’

b. Fr.

232

Mihaela Popescu

In (20), atunci co-occurs with the interjection păi ‘well’. The marker instantiates a movement of discursive justification in addition to its consecutive value. In (21),18 atunci connects an assertion to a reproach: (21)

a. Rom. A: Domnule, românii e deștepţi . . . Ţi-o spun eu . . . [+ speaker’s disagreement] B: Păi bine, domnule Predescu, atunci de ce nu intrăm? (Petrescu, Ultima noapte: GALR II: 733) b. Fr.

A: Mon cher, les Roumains, ils est intelligents . . . C’est moi qui te le dit. B: Eh bien, Monsieur Predescu! Alors pourquoi nous n’entrons pas? ‘A: My dear sir, Romanians are clever . . . It’s me who says that . . . B: Oh, well, Mr. Predescu! Why don’t we enter then?’

In Modern French alors appears frequently accompanied by donc, while Rom. atunci rarely19 co-occurs with deci ‘so’—most often doing so in substandard language, where it reinforces the conclusive aspect of the schema E (p) atunci deci E (q): (22)

a. Rom. A: Toată lumea este gata. B: Atunci, deci, să trecem la vot! (www) b. Fr.

A: Tout le monde est prêt. B: Alors, donc, passons au vote! ‘A: Everybody is ready. B: Well then, let’s get voting!’

In (22) Rom. atunci and Fr. alors also represent POP-markers, or phatic markers (fatismi) according to Bazzanella (1995: 236), since they function as devices which emphasize the subject’s belonging to the same group as the interlocutor. In other contexts, especially within specific conversation genres (such as telephone conversations or a radio dialogue), atunci, like alors, acquires the value of control over the quality of the utterance reception by the interlocutor, as in (23). (23)

a. Rom. A: Atunci, rămâne să va sun în seara asta. [+ conclusion] B: Nu. Cred că ajung târziu acasă. A: Bine, atunci cum facem? [+ conclusion and turn-maintaining]

18 The Romanian variant of this example contains an intentional lack of subject–predicate concord, which is frequent in spoken language and has a strong stylistic value. 19 In contemporary Romanian such uses are perceived as belonging to a substandard variety. Indeed, such occurrences are much more numerous in Old Romanian: Atuncea deci unii dintr-înșii, nu domni sau oameni par că au fost, ci mai răi și mai cruzi decât fiarăle (Cantacuzino, 19) ‘Then some of them didn’t seem to be either gentlemen or human beings, but worse and more cruel than savage beasts’; Atuncea deci au venit ghenărariul Paţea cu câtăva călărime de oaste nemţească (Greceanu, 26) ‘Then came General Paţea with some foreign horse’; or Atuncea dar măriia-sa și toţi alalţi la mare turburare și întristare să afla (Greceanu, 25) ‘Then his majesty and everybody else got extremely troubled and sad.’

Romanian atunci and French alors

233

B: Te sun eu când pot. A: Ochei! Bine-atunci. Mulţumesc mult. [+ conclusion and reception control] (IVRLA 202: GALR II: 733) A: Alors, je vous appellerai ce soir. B: Non. Je crois que je rentrairai trop tard. A: On fait comment, alors? B: Je te téléphonerai quand je serai libre. A: OK! Bon! Grand merci. ‘A: Then, I’ll call you tonight. B: Better not, I think I’ll get home very late. A: Well then, what shall we do? B: I’ll call you as soon as I can. A: OK! Fine then. Thanks a lot.’

b. Fr.

Other occurrences of the marker include its use as a presentational marker that introduces a new topic (24), or a new stage of activity: (24)

a. Rom. A: Nu-mi face plăcere acest subiect. B: Că bine zici! Atunci hai să vorbim despre altceva! (www) b. Fr.

A: Je n’aime pas ce sujet. B: Tu as bien raison! Alors parlons d’autre chose ! ‘A: I don’t like this topic. B: You are so right!/ Right you are. Let’s change the subject, then!’

More rarely, atunci is used as a floor-holding device, i.e. to establish or maintain the turn, to signal a change of address, usually by using a redundant structure which contains verba dicendi. In (25), from the floor-holding function, atunci also acquires an injunctive value, which marks a restriction of the illocutionary act performed by speaker A, through which she invites the interlocutor to answer: (25)

a. Rom. A: Știi ce voiam să te mai întreb? Că tot mi-am adus aminte . . . B: Ia zi-mi, atunci! (www) b. Fr.

A: Sais-tu ce que je voudrais encore te demander? Je viens de me souvenir . . . B: Eh bien, dis-le-moi alors ! ‘A: You know what else I wanted to ask you, now that I just remembered . . . ? B: OK, tell me then!’

Rom. atunci and its translation into Fr. alors can be used to involve the interlocutor in the conversation. For instance, in (26), A’s reply to B’s question is addressed to the interlocutor with indignation:

234 (26)

Mihaela Popescu a. Rom. A: Cine n-a avut curajul să vorbească mai devreme, domnu’ Petre? Nu cumva dumneavoastră? B: Aveţi dreptate! Dar . . . A: Ei, atunci nu vă mai plângeţi! (www) b. Fr.

A: Qui n’a pas eu le courage de parler plus tôt, Monsieur Pierre? Ce n’était pas vous? Ce n’est pas vous, par hasard? B: Vous avez raison! Mais . . . A: Eh bien, alors ne vous en lamentez plus! ‘A: Who didn’t have the courage to speak earlier, Mr Peter? It wasn’t you, by any chance? B: You are right. But . . . A: Well, then stop complaining!’

More rarely, at inter-discourse level, atunci can acquire argumentative values that signal the development of interventions resulting from shared experiences or common points of view, which ensure discourse cohesion. As a demarcation element, atunci often appears accompanied by și (Fr. et alors): (27)

a. Rom. A: Și-atuncea20 nemţii când le văd așa, îmbrăcate . . . B: Păi da, da’ nemţii nu-s obișnuiţi A: NU-S obișnuiţi și-atuncea B: să tolereze A: Și-atuncea, când le văd așa, zic . . . (CORV: GALR II: 770) A: Et alors les Allemands, lorsqu’ils les voient vêtues ainsi . . . B: Oui ! C’est vrai, mais les Allemands, ils ne sont pas habitués A: ILS NE SONT PAS habitués et alors B: à tolérer A: Et alors, lorsqu’ils les voient, ils disent . . . ‘A: And then when Germans see them dressed like that . . . B: Right, they are not used to . . . A: They are NOT and then . . . B: tolerating A: And then, when they see them like that, they say . . .’

b. Fr.

The comparison between pragmatic functions performed by Rom. atunci and its translation into French alors has confirmed that in the two languages the markers show a certain degree of functional equivalence. However, the wide range of values

20 Several variants are attested in Old Romanian such as atuncine, atuncinea, atuncea, atuncia, atunceși, or atunciși. These variants contribute to creating a threefold deictic system which encompasses acum ‘now’, atunci ‘then’, atunciși ‘right then’. In contemporary Romanian these variants characterize the popular register or the substandard language.

Romanian atunci and French alors

235

acquired by alors in spoken contemporary French, indicates that the marker has a higher degree of polyfunctionality, compared to its Romanian counterpart. The functional difference between atunci and alors is particularly evident at argumentative role level, i.e. at the level of decoding the intentions expressed within the utterance. Alors can acquire different discourse roles: 

(28)



resuming a previous topic: A: Non non je ne crois-moi vraiment B: parce que nous il nous a jamais aidé de cette manière-là A: alors moi j’ai jamais su que finalement j’étais prise pour deux mois . . . [in Romanian: păi! ei, bine!] (Hansen 1997: 174) A: ‘No, no, I don’t, believe me, I really, . . . B: because we, he has never helped us in such a way A: well, I’ve always known that finally I was stuck for two months . . .’ drawing the interlocutor’s attention:

(29)

[reading the content of a book] le verbe . . . l’anaphore . . . alors, les connecteurs [in Romanian: apoi (iată)] ‘the verb . . . the anaphora . . . that is, the connectives’



beginning an interaction (the ‘discourse attack’ function in Bouacha 1981: 45):

(30)

[a professor, during her class] Bon, alors je vous avais dit qu’on allait parler maintenant un peu plus de . . . [in Romanian: așadar] (Bouacha 1981: 45; Hansen 1997: 179) ‘OK/right, so, I’ve told you that we are going to talk a bit more about . . .’

In (30), alors fills in the captatio benevolentiae role and it connects the context of interaction to an utterance (see the second group of cases described in section 12.2.2: Rom. Sit (p) atunci E (q) and Fr. Sit (p) alors E (q)). In such uses the speaker presumes that the interlocutor shares the same state of mind and a consensus is reached; that is why she states E (q). This type of function is found in pedagogical discourse and also in audio-visual discourse. Considering the different pragmatic functions analysed for Rom. atunci and Fr. alors, it is remarkable that in contemporary spoken Romanian atunci has a prevailing resultative and conclusive value. It can also be employed as a floor-holding device, a POP marker, a focalizer, a demarcation element, a device to control the interlocutor’s reception or to anticipate the interlocutor’s agreement, or the social acceptance of a turn-change acceptance. In contemporary French alors can perform pragmatic functions similar to those summarized above, but it seems to have reached a higher degree of polyfunctionality, as it performs a range of argumentative functions, and, above all, metatextual

236

Mihaela Popescu

functions that atunci lacks. The second type of case discussed at the beginning of this section, Rom. Sit (p) atunci E (q) and Fr. Sit (p) alors E(q), are mostly achieved through Fr. alors. We can even hypothesize that, in spoken language, alors is a cliché. It is also interesting to note that in both languages the markers can be found in initial, middle, or final position. However, French alors seems to have a freer positioning within the utterance, while Rom. atunci tends to be placed in initial (rarely in final) position, especially at inter-discourse level.

12.3 Conclusions In spoken contemporary French alors is by far one of the most frequent markers, as frequent as bon. As shown, the marker has a high degree of polyfunctionality and of pragmaticalization. It is not possible to say the same for its Romanian counterpart atunci, in spite of the latter’s high number of pragmatic uses, especially in the spoken language of the last decades. Various pragmatic uses which are attested for Fr. alors are not attested for Rom. atunci. A purely quantitative Google search on atunci shows 133,000 occurrences in 0.20 seconds, whereas for alors there are 820,000 occurrences in 0.17 seconds. On the other hand, the new pragmatic values and functions of atunci, especially acquired in spoken language, prove that the analysis and interpretation of this element should go beyond the sentence level, where atunci functions as a time adverbial or as a coordination connective. Rather, it could be advisable to pay more attention to the spoken conversational register, within which the element under discussion has cognitive values, interactional or metatextual functions (discourse-structuring values). The polyfunctionality of Romanian atunci is always dependent on the configuration activated by the context of interaction.

13 How does a concessive value emerge? COR I NN E R OS SAR I

13.1 Introduction The notion of concession is frequently related to the notion of counter-expectation (Lakoff 1971), counter-implication (Morel 1996), or counter-argumentation (Anscombre and Ducrot 1977).1 These different notions are used to represent more or less the same intuition according to which a concession takes place when two states of affairs expressed in two connected utterances are not congruent. The markers connecting them are considered as conveying conventionally a concessive value. Among those, it is possible to find conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs such as Fr. mais, cependant, pourtant, toutefois, which all correspond approximately to ‘but’. In a diachronic perspective, the question addressed in this chapter concerns the origin of the concessive value, since this is considered here as a pragmatic value derived from different semantic values: causal for pourtant, temporal for cependant, or derived from manner adverbials for toutefois, as noted by Marchello-Nizia (2008). The grammaticalization theory (Traugott 1995a; 1999; Traugott and Dasher 2002) complemented by the notion of pragmaticalization, theorized in Dostie (2004), are used as theoretical frameworks to explain how from a semantic meaning whose scope is the content of the utterance, the marker acquires a pragmatic one whose scope is the utterance.2 The basic key to explaining this process of evolution is that discourse markers (DMs) acquire their pragmatic function through an increasing subjectivity in the way they are used, as theorized in Traugott (1999: 189) for in fact: Adverbial path for subjectification VAdv > IpAdv > DM Least subjective ! Most subjective

1 2

Only one seminal reference per notion is quoted. For an overview of grammaticalization theory applied to French, see Marchello-Nizia (2006).

238

Corinne Rossari

The new pragmatic meaning results from the conventionalization of an inference, described by Traugott and Dasher (2002) as the Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change. The repeated occurrence of the adverbial in one particular context helps a concessive inference to emerge. In a succeeding step, the grammaticalization process allows the adverbial to endorse the inference as a conventionalized feature. In other words, the context guides the access to an inference, which becomes part of the lexical value of an item. Marchello-Nizia (2008) uses such a framework to explain the emergence of the concessive value endorsed by the French adverbial cependant ‘however’. She shows that cependant, which originally indicated a simultaneity between two states of affairs, has acquired a concessive value by occurring in more subjective contexts. In such contexts there is at the same time simultaneity and opposition between the utterances expressing the states of affairs. The polyphony framework conceived by Ducrot (1984) lends further support to the notion of concession. In such a framework, the concession takes place when a speaker alludes to the point of view of an énonciateur ‘enunciator’3 that the speaker accepts but does not endorse. She subsequently introduces a point of view that she endorses. This analysis is presented by Ducrot (2001), who describes the polyphonic structure of an excerpt such as: (1) Certes la France a de bonnes pistes . . . ‘Sure, France has good slopes . . .’ The context is the following: two friends are talking about their holidays. The first friend would like to go to France, because there are good slopes. The second friend would prefer to go skiing in Switzerland. According to Ducrot’s analysis, the concessive value of this sequence results from two different interpretations of énonciateur ‘enunciator’, attitude ‘attitude’, and point de vue ‘point of view’. 



The first speaker has uttered the content p (La France a de bonnes pistes ‘France has good slopes’) as an argument among others for the conclusion C (Allons en France ‘Let’s go to France’). The sequence certes p uses two points of view: (POV1) which corresponds to the content p and (POV2) which concerns the way this content is used in the discourse, i.e. p is an argument for C. The first speaker has uttered p as the unique argument for the conclusion C. The sequence certes p then uses three points of view: (POV1) which corresponds to the content p; (POV2) which indicates that p is an argument for C and (POV3) which indicates that p is a sufficient argument for C. In this case, the speaker

3 The French quotations are translated by the author, who apologizes for the possible imprecision due to the language transfer of the concepts labelled in French.

How does a concessive value emerge?

239

does not have the same attitude towards the three points of view: she has an attitude of agreement for POV1 and POV2, and an attitude of disagreement for POV3. By this analysis the concessive value is related to the polyphonic interpretation of the certes p sequence. The markers that occur in this configuration are correlates. The most usual pair of correlates in French is certes, . . . mais ‘sure, . . . but’. But other markers are possible for introducing the first sequence: en effet/effectivement/soit/ d’accord etc., as noted by Garnier and Sitri (2009: 125), referring to Morel (1980): Certes appartient à un paradigme d’adverbes comme bien entendu, bien sûr, d’accord, soit, oui, en effet, effectivement, certainement, assurément, sans doute catégorisés comme adverbes de validation ou adverbes modaux qui, comme lui, peuvent apparaître dans le premier terme d’un système concessif [ . . . ]. ‘Certes pertains to a paradigm of adverbs such as bien entendu, bien sûr, d’accord, soit, oui, en effet, effectivement, certainement, assurément, sans doute categorized as validation adverbs or modal adverbs, which, like certes, can occur in the first segment of a concessive system[ . . . ]’

In such cases, as indicated in the quotation above, these markers have the property of expressing validation in a dialogic context. The concessive value thus possibly relies on the dialogic properties of the first marker of the sequence. Among the markers that can occur in this position, the origin of the concessive value of certes in particular has been analysed as the result of the strengthening function that the adverbial has primarily endorsed. According to Anscombre (1980: 118), certes was at first only used to strengthen an assertion: Le simple fait de renforcer une assertion, c’est par là même signaler que cette assertion avait besoin de l’être, et qu’elle pouvait donc être combattue. C’est de cette façon qu’une marque de renforcement devient une marque de concession. ‘The simple fact of strengthening an assertion is in itself an indication that this assertion needed to be strengthened, and thus that it could be contested. It is in this way that a marker of strengthening becomes a marker of concession.’

Rodríguez Somolinos (1995), who studied the diachronic evolution of this adverb, confirms this analysis. She notices that certes has no polyphonic value in prior uses. Its function was to strengthen an assertion which was not linked to the utterance of a former point of view. The polyphonic value, which gives rise to the concessive meaning, is subsequent to this function (though Rodríguez Somolinos does not date it). Garnier and Sitri (2009) also apply this analysis. So the question involved in addressing the origin of the concessive value is twofold: either it concerns the marker linking the p and q sequence, such as p, cependant q, and the concession is viewed as a counter-implication; or it concerns the marker introducing the p sequence and the concession is viewed as a polyphonic phenomenon. This chapter will focus on polyphonic constructions. First the exact

240

Corinne Rossari

contribution of each marker will be determined, before addressing the question of the emergence of the concessive value they convey.

13.2 Dialogic and monologic use of concessive markers Any concessive marker used in correlation with mais ‘but’ may occur in dialogic contexts, as already noticed by Rossari (2008) and Garnier and Sitri (2009). More precisely, such contexts can be defined as ‘dialogic structures’, according to the sense given in the Geneva model of discourse presented in Roulet, Fillettaz, and Grobet (2001): structures composed of moves that can be (but do not have to be) uttered by two different speakers and which share illocutionary links (e.g. a question and its answer). In such structures, these markers can constitute in themselves complete illocutionary acts of agreement. In this respect, they share the fifth property listed by Ghezzi in Chapter 2, being simultaneously lexemes and utterances. (2)

Éraste: Vous êtes un coquin. Mascarille: D’accord. (Molière, Dépit amoureux: 420)4 ‘Éraste: You are a crook. Mascarille: Indeed.’

In this dialogue other adverbials could be used: (3)

Vous êtes un coquin. En effet/Effectivement/Certes/Soit.

Any of these adverbials can be used in correlation with mais in monologic structures. According to Roulet et al. (2001), in monologic structures, moves uttered by the same speaker share interactive links, such as argument, counter-argument, conclusion, or reformulation (p. 172). (4)

Certes je ne vaux pas les deux autres, mais je t’aime autant. (Sand, Correspondance : 183–973) ‘Sure, I am not as good as the other two, but I love you as much.’

The first move of this sequence is a counter-argument in relation to a conclusion expressed in the second move. Any of the markers of the previous dialogic structure could be used instead of certes in (4). (5)

4

D’accord/En effet/Effectivement/Soit, je ne vaux pas les deux autres, mais je t’aime autant.

The examples come from the FRANTEXT database. Any use that seems natural in contemporary French, regardless of date, is also taken into account. The English translation generally corresponds wordby-word-to the French, as it is relevant to stay as close as possible to the original.

How does a concessive value emerge?

241

The fact that these markers have both uses (monologic and dialogic) raises the question of their value in each configuration. Do they have the same value or do they endorse a different value in monolgic and dialogic configurations? Even if it is clear that concessive interpretation is only possible in the monologic configuration, it is assumed here that the markers have the same value in both discourse patterns. This is not to imply that any of them necessarily convey the same meaning, or that they are always substitutable for each other.

13.3 Discourse features of the polyphonic conception of concession Before proceeding to the semantic analysis of each marker, I will give a definition of discourse features of the sequence conveying a concessive interpretation. This definition relies on the tools of Carel (2011: 296ff.) in her theory of argumentative polyphony. She assumes that any content can be associated with a ‘mode de présentation dans le discours’ (‘way of presentation in discourse’). To define the latter, she employs notions specifying the centrality of the content in the discourse flow and the way it is uttered, i.e. the ton ‘tonality’. Three of these notions will be used here: two concerning the centrality of some content in the discourse flow and one the tonality in which some content is presented. The notion of accordé ‘accepted’ or pris en charge ‘endorsed’ relate to the first parameter; the notion of conçu ‘conceived’ relates to the second. They are defined as follows: Un contenu est présenté comme accordé quand il est introduit et accepté sans constituer pour autant le centre du texte. Il est présenté comme pris en charge quand il est mis au centre du texte. Un contenu est énoncé sur le mode du conçu quand le locuteur déclare concevoir le contenu à l’occasion même de son énonciation. (Carel, to appear) ‘A content is presented as accepted when it is introduced and accepted without constituting the focus of the discourse. It is presented as endorsed when it is the focus of the discourse. A content is uttered in a “conceived way”, when the speaker says that he framed it simultaneously to the enunciation act.’

The configuration which gives rise to a concessive interpretation has the following characteristics. It is formed by two constituents:  

a content said (p) a content said (q)

which are differently presented in the discourse as: 

the (p) content is: accordé ‘accepted’ by the speaker  conçu ‘conceived’ by another speaker the (q) content is pris en charge ‘endorsed’ by the speaker. 



242

Corinne Rossari

The ideal configuration making visible the concessive interpretation is exemplified by the following discourse: (6)

L1: Je trouve Lucie gentille. [The content Lucie gentille is presented as conceived by L1] L2: Lucie est gentille, c’est incontestable, mais elle est déjà mariée. [The content Lucie gentille is accepted, i.e. is not introduced by L2 as the focus of the discourse. The content Lucie déjà mariée is endorsed, i.e. introduced as the focus of the discourse.] ‘L1: I think that Lucy is nice. L2: Lucy is nice, this is unquestionable, but she is already married.’

Such a configuration is compatible with any of the markers listed in (2) and (3): (7)

L1: Je trouve Lucie gentille. (p) L2: Certes/En effet/Effectivement/D’accord/Soit, Lucie est gentille (p), mais elle est déjà mariée. (q) ‘L1: I think that Lucie is nice. L2: [Certes/En effet/Effectivement/D’accord/Soit], Lucie is nice, but she is already married.’

All of them keep intact the properties that they have in their dialogic use. They can all be used to express the agreement of the speaker in relation to the content conceived by the first speaker: (8)

Je trouve Lucie gentille. ( p) Certes/En effet/Effectivement/D’accord/Soit.

The difference from the dialogic structure is that, in the monologic one, the second speaker adds, after p, new information that expresses the reason why the latter content is accepted and not endorsed. In terms of Sperber and Wilson’s (1986) frame of relevance theory, one could say that p is accepted because it is less relevant than q. Any monologic configuration in which these adverbials can be used corresponds to this general pattern. In this regard, if one refers to the difference made in the introduction between discourse and pragmatic markers, the correlates certes/en effet etc. . . . mais can be considered as both a pragmatic marker and a discourse marker. They focus on discourse structure by specifying a discourse relation of counter-argumentation, but they also focus on interaction alluding to a potential prior discourse. According to this analysis, the concessive value in polyphonic sense is free from any kind of opposition between p and q contents. The contrast, which gives rise to

How does a concessive value emerge?

243

the concessive value, concerns the manner of presentation of p and q, not their argumentative orientation. Such an assumption raises the question of the semantic contribution of the second marker of the concessive sequence: in particular, how is it possible to take into account the contribution of mais—which is considered to be— the emblematic marker of argumentative opposition in the seminal paper by Anscombre and Ducrot (1977)? And, further, how are we to explain the necessity of mais in such structures, if it does not serve to underline an opposition? Both questions will be discussed in the two following sections.

13.4 The independence of concessive value from an argumentative opposition It is assumed here that the contribution of mais in a concessive construction is to indicate that there is a contrast between the way in which p and q are presented in the discourse. This assumption is based on four clues. First, in some configuration, a concessive interpretation is available and mais does not underline any kind of opposition. (9) un pauvre diable de protestant me disait, il y a quelques jours, après combien d’autres, qu’on voyait en moi beaucoup de haine. Les paroles de cet homme, d’ailleurs bienveillant, me sont revenues, ce matin, je ne sais pourquoi. Oui, c’est vrai, je suis plein de haine depuis mon enfance, et nul n’a aimé les autres hommes plus naïvement que je n’ai fait. Mais j’ai abhorré les choses, les institutions, les lois du monde. J’ai haï le monde infiniment, et les expériences de ma vie n’ont servi qu’à exaspérer cette passion. (Bloy, Journal 1, 177) ‘A poor devil of a Protestant told me a few days ago, after many others, that one could see in me a lot of hate. The words of this man, who was otherwise kind, came back to me this morning. Yes, it is true, I have been full of hate since my childhood, and no one has loved other men more naively than I have. But I have abhorred the things, the institutions, and the laws of this world. I have hated the world without end, and the experiences of my life have but strengthened this passion.’ This excerpt illustrates the discourse pattern of concession. The content in bold je suis plein de haine depuis mon enfance = p is presented as conceived by a first speaker who is identified as un pauvre diable de protestant. This content is also presented as accepted by the speaker, as underlined by the use of oui, c’est vrai. It is followed by content presented as endorsed, introduced by mais, which confirms what is said in the p sequence: j’ai abhorré les choses, les institutions, les lois du monde. J’ ai haï . . . It is clear that in such a configuration, the contribution of mais does not concern an argumentative opposition. Instead, it is possible to say,

244

Corinne Rossari

following Carel (2011: 333), that ‘it indicates that the first segment is only accordé “accepted” ’. It is even possible to say that the role of mais is limited to signalling that the previous content is not endorsed. Second, any marker which is able to underline the contrast regarding the way the two items of content are presented could occur in concessive configurations. For instance, in the following discourse, toujours est-il que, il reste que, en attendant ‘it remains that’ has the same function as mais, underlining the fact that the constituent it introduces is the one which counts, according to the speaker. (10) ‘Qui?—où?—le Roi !—Je ne le vois pas;—je vous jure que je ne l’aperçois pas.’ ‘Il faut que vous soyez aveugle.’ ‘C’est bien possible. Toujours est-il que je ne vois qu’une foule tumultueuse d’idiots et de fous qui s’empressent de se prosterner devant un gigantesque caméléopard, et qui s’évertuent à déposer un baiser sur le sabot de l’animal. (Baudelaire, Nouvelles histoires extraordinaires, 250) ‘“Who? Where?—the King! I don’t see him; I swear to you that I don’t see him.” “You must be blind.” “It is possible. The fact remains that I only see a tumultuous crowd of idiots and fools who hasten to prostrate themselves before a huge cameleopard [giraffe], and strive to plant a kiss on the hoof of the animal.” ’ (11)

Si mon oncle t’a mis là-dedans, c’est qu’il avait ses raisons. Il se trompe peutêtre. Personne n’est infaillible. Toujours est-il que ton devoir est de lui obéir. (Gibeau, Allons z’enfants, 23) ‘If my uncle involved you in this, he had his reasons. He is mistaken perhaps. Nobody is perfect. The fact remains that your duty is to obey him.’

(12) J’y attache la plus grande importance, sachant quelle résonance prennent souvent de telles rencontres. Certes, les circonstances ne leur confèrent pas le caractère dramatique qu’elles avaient eu en d’autres temps et les facilités actuelles de déplacement les banalisent. Il reste que, . . . , les séjours à Paris de beaucoup de chefs d’État . . . forment la trame et l’illustration de notre redressement mondial. (De Gaulle, Le Renouveau (1958–1962)). ‘I attach the greatest importance to it, knowing what resonance these meetings often have. Of course, the circumstances do not give them the dramatic character they had in other times, and today’s ease of travel renders them commonplace. The fact remains that . . . the sojourns in Paris of many heads of state . . . form the basis and the demonstration of our international recovery.’ (13)

Quand ils auront été échaudés une ou deux fois, ils apprendront peut-être à se taire . . . en attendant, tout le monde est au courant dans le village, et on n’a pas souvent du monde venant du dehors dans cette région. (Triolet, Le Premier accroc coûte deux cents francs, 359)

How does a concessive value emerge?

245

‘When they have been frightened once or twice, they will perhaps learn to keep quiet . . . the fact remains that everybody is informed in the village, and outsiders don’t often visit this region.’ In these configurations, which have all a concessive interpretation, mais could be used with the same function: (14) C’est bien possible. Mais je ne vois qu’une foule tumultueuse d’idiots et de fous qui s’empressent de se prosterner devant un gigantesque caméléopard, et qui s’évertuent à déposer un baiser sur le sabot de l’animal. (See (10)) ‘It is possible. But I only see a tumultuous crowd of idiots and fools who hasten to prostrate themselves before a huge cameleopard, and strive to plant a kiss on the hoof of the animal.’ (15)

Si mon oncle t’a mis là-dedans, c’est qu’il avait ses raisons. Il se trompe peutêtre. Personne n’est infaillible. Mais ton devoir est de lui obéir. (See (11)) ‘If my uncle involved you in this, he had his reasons. He is mistaken perhaps. Nobody is perfect. But it is your duty to obey him.’

(16)

Certes, les circonstances ne leur confèrent pas le caractère dramatique qu’elles avaient eu en d’autres temps et les facilités actuelles de déplacement les banalisent. Mais, les séjours à Paris de beaucoup de chefs d’État . . . forment la trame et l’illustration de notre redressement mondial. (See (12)) ‘Of course, the circumstances do not give them the dramatic character they had in other times and today’s ease of travel renders them commonplace. But the sojourns in Paris of many heads of state . . . form the basis and the demonstration of our international recovery.’

(17)

Quand ils auront été échaudés une ou deux fois, ils apprendront peut-être à se taire . . . mais, tout le monde est au courant dans le village, et on n’a pas souvent du monde venant du dehors dans cette région. (See (13)) ‘When they have been frightened once or twice, they will perhaps learn to keep quiet . . . but everyone is informed in the village, and outsiders don’t often visit this region.’

Third, mais, in non-concessive structures, can be used without any relation or counter-argumentation. For instance, the mais labelled ‘mais de surréalisation’ by García Negroni (2003) is clearly non-adversative. (18)

Soirée, venons à l’essentiel, avec Gary. Très en forme, très paisible, ayant une mine superbe et n’ayant plus aucun problème d’élocution. Peut à nouveau faire de la moto. Beau, mais beau! . . . Plus beau encore . . . (Lagarce, Journal 1977–1990, 53) ‘Evening, back to basics, with Gary. In very good shape, very calm, looking splendid, and without any problem with speaking. Able again to ride a motorbike. Handsome, but handsome! . . . Still more handsome . . .’

246

Corinne Rossari

The idea of contrast between two ways of introducing p and q in the discourse can account for such a use of mais. The first beau ‘handsome’ is presented as agreed and the second as endorsed. The contrast conveys the hyperbolic interpretation according to which the protagonist is considered particularly attractive. Other uses of mais share this non-adversative value. In some sequences, mais introduces an adjunction to some previous utterance whose function can vary. In the following example, mais re-introduces the object mot ‘word’ afterwards to strengthen it. (19) Oui, vous aurez un mot, mais rien qu’un mot. J’ai du monde. (Lespinasse, Letters à M. de Guibert (1769–1776), 2) ‘Yes, you will have a word, but nothing but a word. I have guests.’ Here again, mais marks a contrast between the two occurrences of ‘word’. Last, the use of mais is necessary in some configurations involving a counterargumentative interpretation, whereas in others still involving a counter-argumentative interpretation it is not. (20) C’est vrai que c’est attachant, un enfant (p), mais le plaisir se paie cher: en charges, en limitations de ressources et de libertés (q). (Bazin, L’école des pères 87) ‘It’s true that it is endearing, a child, but the pleasure comes at a high price in commitments, in limitations of means and of freedoms.’ (21) ‘Mama, ça y est, j’ai un amoureux je te dis, c’est lui mon amoureux.’ ‘C’est pas vrai!’ protesta Olivier. ‘C’est vrai que c’est pas vrai (p), mais t’es mon amoureux quand même, mon amoureux pour de rire (q)!’ (Sabatier, David et Olivier, 15) ‘ “Mummy, that’s it, I have a lover, I say, he is my lover.” “It’s not true,” protested Olivier. “It’s true that it’s not true, but you are still my lover, my pretend lover!” ’ The use of c’est vrai que ‘it is true that’ indicates that p has already been conceived. Thus it produces a contrast concerning the way of presentation of q. Such a contrast must be marked by mais. Therefore, the suppression of mais produces a problem of coherence. (22)

?5 C’est vrai que c’est attachant, un enfant, le plaisir se paie cher: en charges, en limitations de ressources et de libertés. (See (20)) ‘It is true that it is endearing, a child, the pleasure comes at a high price in commitments in limitations of means and of freedoms.’

(23)

?C’est vrai que c’est pas vrai, t’es mon amoureux quand même, mon amoureux pour de rire! (See (21)) ‘“It’s true that it’s not true, you are still my lover, my pretend lover.”’ 5

‘?’ indicates that the sequence is not very natural.

How does a concessive value emerge?

247

The fact that mais cannot be removed in such contexts (where the counterargumentative interpretation is clearly accessible) remains unexplained if mais does not mark the contrast between the way in which p and q are introduced in discourse. Il est vrai que indicates that p is previously conceived. It thus does not have the same discourse status as q. The speaker has to indicate how she takes into account the p content. Mais allows her to do that by presenting p and q on two different enunciative levels. When there is no marker attributing to p a particular discourse status, the counterargumentative relationship can be obtained with or without mais: (24)

Que voulez-vous que je vous dise? L’homme est mauvais, l’homme est difforme. Le papillon est réussi, l’homme est raté. Dieu a manqué cet animal-là. (Hugo, Les Misérables, 529) ‘What do you want me to say? Man is evil, man is deformed. The butterfly is a success, man is a failure. God failed with that animal.’

(25)

Que voulez-vous que je vous dise? L’homme est mauvais, l’homme est difforme. Le papillon est réussi, mais l’homme est raté. Dieu a manqué cet animal-là. ‘What do you want me to say? Man is evil, man is deformed. The butterfly is a success, but man is a failure. God failed with that animal.’

Such a contrast shows that the contribution of mais does not concern the counterargumentative relationship, but the way in which p and q are taken into account by the speaker. When p is presented by a marker such as certes, peut-être etc. as already conceived, p and q have to be presented as pertaining to two different enunciative levels. Thus, the use of mais is necessary. Otherwise, this contrast has not to be specified, and the counter-argumentative relationship can be inferred from the content of p and q.

13.5 The function of the first marker If a concessive interpretation is due to one particular discourse configuration, what sort of contribution does the adverbial occurring in the initial constituent bring? It helps the understanding of p as conveying a content which has been conceived by a previous speaker. If such an interpretation is given by the context, the concessive interpretation is accessible without any marker. Let us go back to the ideal configuration illustrated by (7). In such a configuration, the use of a marker in the initial constituent is not requested for the concessive interpretation: (26) L1: Je trouve Lucie gentille. (p) L2: Lucie est gentille (p), mais elle est déjà mariée (p). ‘L1: I think that Lucie is nice. L2: Lucie is nice, but she is already married.’

248

Corinne Rossari

The dialogic structure allows one to understand p uttered by the second speaker as conceived by the first. But the fact that the second speaker endorses q and accepts p has to be marked. Such an indication cannot be inferred without any marking: (27)

L1: Je trouve Lucie gentille. (p) L2: Lucie est gentille (p), elle est déjà mariée (q). ‘L1: I think that Lucie is nice. L2: Lucie is nice, she is already married.’

The second speaker has to signal that there is a contrast regarding the way of presentation between the two constituents of her utterance. Therefore a marker is required at their juncture. It can be mais, but also a marker such as toujours est-il que, en attendant . . . as discussed above: (28) L1: Je trouve Lucie gentille. (p) L2: Lucie est gentille (p), en attendant / toujours est-il qu’elle déjà mariée (q). ‘L1: I think that Lucie is nice. L2: Lucie is nice, it remains true that she is already married.’ When there is no dialogic context that allows one to understand the first constituent as already conceived by a previous speaker, a marker has to convey this indication. Some adverbials indicating an agreement in a dialogic structure (certes, soit, d’accord) can convey by themselves such a function in a monologic structure; others need a larger context to be correctly interpreted (en effet, effectivement): (29)

Certes/D’accord/Soit/?En effet/?Effectivement/, Lucie est gentille, mais elle est déjà mariée. [ . . . ] ‘Lucie is nice, but she is already married’

To sum up, the markers occurring in the first constituent can help the understanding of p as content previously conceived, but they do not contribute to this function in the same way: en effet and effectivement need a larger context to convey such information, whereas certes, soit, and d’accord can convey it by themselves.

13.6 Different nuances of the concessive value according to the selected marker 13.6.1 Certes, en effet, and effectivement The role of the marker occurring in the first constituent can help the understanding of p as a content conceived by a first speaker. But the markers differ in relation to the clues that help the understanding of p as conceived. Some markers need more contextual clues than others.

How does a concessive value emerge?

249

With en effet or effectivement, the clues for p as content ‘conceived by the first speaker’ have to be more accessible than with certes. (30)

M. de Sacy s’approche: ‘Ne crains rien, mon garçon. Ce n’est pas ta faute. Certes, tu n’aurais pas dû faire feu sans un ordre. Mais ce n’est pas toi qui as fait ricocher la balle; c’est le Bon Dieu.’ (Yourcenar, Le Labyrinthe du monde, 1224) ‘Mr de Sacy comes close: “Don’t be afraid, my boy. It is not your fault. To be sure, you shouldn’t have shot without an order. But it is not you who made the bullet ricochet; it is God.” ’

The use of effectivement or en effet needs a richer context to be accessed as natural: (31)

M. de Sacy s’approche: ‘Ne crains rien, mon garçon. Ce n’est pas ta faute. ?[En effet/Effectivement], tu n’aurais pas dû faire feu sans un ordre. Mais ce n’est pas toi qui as fait ricocher la balle; c’est le Bon Dieu.’

If the structure is integrated in a dialogic context, the use of the adverbial becomes fully natural: (32)

Je n’aurais jamais dû faire feu sans ordre! M. de Sacy s’approche: ‘Ne crains rien, mon garçon. Ce n’est pas ta faute. En effet/Effectivement, tu n’aurais pas dû faire feu sans un ordre. Mais ce n’est pas toi qui as fait ricocher la balle; c’est le Bon Dieu.’ ‘I should not shoot without an order. Mr de Sacy comes close: “Don’t be afraid, my boy. It is not your fault. Indeed, you shouldn’t have shot without an order. But it is not you who made the bullet ricochet; it is God.” ’

It is easier for certes to present p as conceived than for effectivement or en effet. This characteristic is due to the dialogic properties of certes. When used as an answer to an assertion, certes conveys the idea that the state of affairs that it confirms is already salient in information state, as shown in Rossari (2008). For instance, in the following dialogue, certes indicates that the question is to be interpreted as rhetorical. It conveys a state of affairs that is obvious, in the view of the second speaker. (33) L’espoir de vie des hommes, eh bien, dans cette contrée, elle est de 25 ans. Celle des femmes de 18. Mais n’y a-t-il pas eu des mesures prises contre la famine? Certes, certes. On nous les racconte. On nous les décrit. (D’Eaubonne, L’indicateur du réseau, 136) ‘“The life expectancy of men in this country is 25 years. That of women is 18.” “But have no measures been taken to combat the famine? Certainly, certainly. They tell us there are, they describe them.” ’ The fact that measures have been taken to combat the famine is presented by certes as obvious. With en effet or effectivement the interpretation is very different. The question is not understood as rhetorical:

250 (34)

Corinne Rossari L’espoir de vie des hommes, eh bien, dans cette contrée, elle est de 25 ans. Celle des femmes de 18. Mais n’y a-t-il pas eu des mesures prises contre la famine? En effet/Effectivement. On nous les raconte. On nous les décrit. ‘“The life expectancy of men in this country is 25 years. That of women is 18.” “But have no measures been taken to combat the the famine?” “Indeed. They tell us there are, they describe them”.’

The use of the markers is thus difficult to interpret in such a context. When they are used to react to a question, they indicate that the addressee shares the same doubt as the speaker. This is very clear in the following configuration: (35)

‘Je ne sais pas trop où les poser.’ ‘Foutez-les sur la caisse, dit l’Asperge, voyant mon hésitation.’ ‘Mais ils sont mouillés et ça risque de . . . faire des ronds, laisser des traces, je veux dire.’ ‘Et alors?’ ‘Et alors? En effet.’ (Benoziglio, Cabinet portrait, 25) ‘ “I don’t know where to put them.” “Stick them on the box,” said Asperge, seeing my hesitation. “But they are wet and it might make . . . circles, traces, I mean.” “So?” “So? Indeed.” ’

With en effet, the speaker indicates that she shares the doubt expressed by et alors? She restates the question to underline the fact that she has no answer either. Taking into account their dialogic use makes it possible to explain the markers’ function in the concessive structure. Certes indicates that there is some information already available in common. Such an allusion enables one to understand the configuration as conveying the first content as previously conceived. As such content is already available, it is not presented as central in discourse and can therefore be interpreted as accepted. En effet or effectivement do not share this property. In a dialogic context such as (35), they indicate that the speaker shares the doubt of the addressee. They do not indicate that the state of affairs alluded to by the question is already available in information state, but that the doubt expressed by the question is shared, as already noted in Rossari (2008). More abstractly, it means that the information state represented by the utterance of the first speaker is compatible/coherent with the addressee’s representation (second speaker). With such a function, more clues than certes are required in concessive structures to indicate that p has already been conceived, as shown by the contrast between (30), (31), and (32).

How does a concessive value emerge?

251

But en effet and effectivement have another particularity in relation to certes. They can introduce constituents as mere justification of previous ones. How can this characteristic be explained in relation to their dialogic functioning? It is possible to show that such configurations consist of shortened concessive structures. When p is not followed by mais, the contrast between content accepted and content endorsed disappears. As discussed above, such a contrast governs the choice of mais (cf. the comments on (20, 21) vs (22, 23)). Since en effet and effectivement do not themselves confer on p an interpretation of conceived content, they only convey a confirmative value (as in their dialogic use) in relation to a previous constituent x. The constituent p is then understood as the reason motivating the confirmation of x. This is clearly exemplified in the following: (36) J’ay veu le livre des passions du Pere Senaut de l’oratoire. En effet il escrit bien (p), mais les morales chrestiennes du Père Yves, Capucin, qui a fait 4 volumes françois de la theologie naturelle [ . . . ] n’en cedent rien audit Senaut (q). (Mersenne, Correspondance: t. 10, 1640–1641, 775) ‘I have seen the book of passions of Father Senaut of the oratory. Indeed he writes well, but the Christian morals of Father Yves, Capucin, who has written 4 French volumes of natural theology . . . are as good as those of Father Senaut.’ (37)

On dira sans doute que ces peuples ne seront pas toujours en guerre. En effet, il y aura des intervalles de paix (p): mais dans ces intervalles, on ne réparera pas tous les maux que la guerre aura faits . . . (Condillac, Le Commerce [ . . . ], 4) ‘It will doubtless be said that these peoples will not always be at war. Indeed, there will be intervals of peace, but at such times one will not heal all the injuries inflicted by the war . . . ’

(38) J’ay veu le livre des passions du Pere Senaut de l’oratoire. En effet il escrit bien. ‘I have seen the book of passions of Father Senaut of the oratory. Indeed he writes well.’ (39)

On dira sans doute que ces peuples ne seront pas toujours en guerre. En effet, il y aura des intervalles de paix. ‘It will doubtless be said that these peoples will not always be at war. Indeed, there will be intervals of peace’

Examples (36) and (37) show the concessive functioning of en effet. The sequence in bold allows one to situate p in a discourse where a previous speaker could have conceived such a content. The concessive interpretation can thus emerge: p is interpreted as previously conceived and is also interpreted as accepted thanks to the use of mais that introduces the contrast with q (which is endorsed).

252

Corinne Rossari

When mais and q are suppressed, the concessive value disappears. The adverbial is understood as a confirmation of a previous information state that is represented by the sequence in bold. In such a state, there is a hypothesis which can be reconstructed, such as: ‘I have read books of passions/such peoples are not always at war, said x.’ The p content is then understood as the reason motivating the confirmation of x expressed by en effet. Such an interpretation is available in (38) and (39). Such a functioning is particularly exemplary to illustrate the plurality of the discourse planes on which a marker can operate. En effet and effectivement operate on three planes which can be more or less salient according to the context they occur in. When they introduce a justification, they seem more concerned with the textual level of discourse organization; when they introduce a concessive sequence, with the social cohesion dimension because of the allusion to a prior discourse; and when they express an agreement, with the personal stance dimension. But all three levels are always co-present in the functioning of these markers. 13.6.2 D’accord or soit When used in a dialogic structure, d’accord or soit act on the illocutionary force of the previous utterance. Such an illocutionary functioning make them always allude to some previous request when used in monologic structures. The use of d’accord in (40) shows the property of this adverbial in alluding to a previous request. (40)

Mélanger, c’est ma tendance, dans la première partie vous avez vu. Aucun ordre, tout est mélangé, incestueux d’accord c’est ma structure mentale (p), . . . je le sens. (Angot, L’inceste, 91) ‘I tend to mix, you’ve seen it in the first part. No order, everything is mixed, incestuous all right, it is my mental structure . . . I feel it.’

Soit could be used instead of d’accord with the same function: (41)

Mélanger, c’est ma tendance, dans la première partie vous avez vu. Aucun ordre, tout est mélangé, incestueux soit c’est ma structure mentale (p), [ . . . ] je le sens. ‘I tend to mix, you’ve seen it in the first part. No order, everything is mixed, incestuous all right, it is my mental structure . . . I feel it.’

By using soit or d’accord, the speaker indicates that she shares the diagnostic about an incestuous quality in her mental structure. The use of d’accord is then consistent with a concessive interpretation, by building a potential request that could be expressed as ‘you have to accept that your mental structure has an incestuous quality’, to which it reacts. The p content is thus presented as previously conceived. This is why d’accord or soit can give rise to a concessive interpretation in contexts where en effet, effectivement, or certes could not:

How does a concessive value emerge?

253

(42)

Tu veux me parler? Soit! Mais devant Joë, cette fois! (Martin du Gard, Un taciturne, 1349) ‘You want to talk to me? OK! But in front of Joë, this time!’

(43)

Là, je refusai tout net. Le type aux longs cheveux eut un sourire énigmatique: ‘Tu le refuses aujourd’hui? D’accord. Mais dès que ma chronique sera parue dans Rock et Folk, tu reviendras le chercher en courant!’ (Manœuvre, 1985) ‘Right there, I flatly refused. The guy with long hair smiled mysteriously. “You refuse it today? All right. But as soon as my feature appears in Rock and Folk, you’ll be running back to get it!” ’

(44)

Tu veux me parler? ? [En effet/Effectivement/Certes]! Mais devant Joë, cette fois!

(45)

Tu le refuses aujourd’hui? ? [En effet/Effectivement/Certes] Mais dès que ma chronique sera parue dans Rock et Folk, tu reviendras le chercher en courant!

The use of d’accord or soit allows the speaker to express an agreement regarding the illocutionary act expressed in her own question: the desire of the hearer to speak to her in (42) and the refusal of the hearer to do something expressed in the question (43). The other adverbials (en effet/effectivement/certes) are not interpreted as conveying an agreement concerning the illocutionary act expressed by the question. Their use therefore seems strange. To sum up, even if these markers can operate simultaneously on different levels of discourse organization, they differ in relation to their capacity to mark ‘speaker or addressee relatedness’ (see Chapter 2, this volume). D’accord and soit allow the speaker to refer to the illocution of the message whereas en effet, effectivement, and certes allow reference to the content of it. The illocutionary feature gives the former markers the property of generating concessive interpretation in any monologic structure.

13.7 Diachronic perspectives Does concessive interpretation result from a diachronic change in the meaning or functioning of the marker? This study has assumed that concessive markers, those which introduce the first constituent, convey the same value in monologic structures that they do in dialogic ones. What about this hypothesis in a diachronic perspective? Have these markers had a prior dialogic use of agreement? The case of certes and soit, whose concessive value seems the most conventionalized, will be examined here. This analysis is based on four constructions from the 16th century, found in FRANTEXT, which correspond to two different realizations of dialogic (a and b) and monologic (c and d) uses:

254

Corinne Rossari

(a) soit/certes as autonomous constituents (preceded and followed by a point) in dialogic structures; (b) soit/certes directly followed by mais in dialogic structures; (c) soit/certes directly followed by mais in monologic structures (= p, soit/certes, mais q); (d) soit/certes not directly followed by mais in monologic structures (= soit/certes p, mais q). The latter pattern corresponds to the regular concessive sequence. For each construction mentioned above, one example of early use and one example of most recent use is given. (a) Example of early uses of soit (1661): (46)

Valère:

Mais quoi? L’honneur de vous connoître Est un si grand bonheur, est un si doux plaisir, Que de vous saluer j’avois un grand desir. Sganarelle: Soit. (Molière, L’École de maris, 379) ‘Valère: But what? The honour of knowing you is such a delight, such a sweet pleasure that I really wanted to greet you. Sganarelle: So be it.’

(a) Example of recent uses of soit (1959): (47)

‘Ayez pitié au moins de votre mère.’ Stavroguine, regardant sa mère, puis Gaganov. ‘Soit. Je vais m’expliquer. Mais je le dirai en secret à M Gaganov, qui me comprendra.’ (Camus, [Dostoïevski] Les Possédés) ‘ “Have pity at least on your mother.” Stavroguine, looking at his mother, then at Gaganov. “So be it. I will give an explanation. But I will give it in secret to Mr. Gaganov, who will understand me.” ’

(b) Example of early uses of soit (1761): (48)

Et comme il convient que je fasse respecter le nom que je vais porter, je m’engage de passer six mois, à commencer dès demain, dans une maison religieuse [ . . . ] Fait à *Paris le * 22 octobre * 1755. Signé Defresne. [ . . . ] Réponse. Soit, mais cette retraite momentanée me paroît bien inutile . . . (Chevrier, Le Colporteur, 93) ‘And since I have to uphold the name I will bear, I commit to spending six months from tomorrow in a religious house [ . . . ] Written in Paris on 22 October 1755. Signed Defresne. Answer. So be it, but this temporary retirement seems to me quite useless . . .’

How does a concessive value emerge?

255

(b) Example of recent uses of soit (2010): (49)

‘Antoine, écoutez-moi, deux minutes encore!’ ‘Soit, mais allez-y droit ou je vous plante là.’ (Garat, Pense à demain, 81) ‘ “Antoine, listen to me, two more minutes!” “OK, but get to the point or I leave immediately.”’

(c) Example of early uses of soit (1738): (50) ‘Où je ris, chante, et bois: le tout, par complaisance.’ ‘Par complaisance, soit. Mais vous ne savez pas?’ (Piron, La Métromanie, 139) ‘ “Where I laugh, sing, and drink: all three by kindness.” “By kindness, so be it. But you don’t know?” ’ (c) Example of recent uses of soit (2006): (51)

C’est une table rectangulaire, soit, mais c’est aussi une Table Ronde. (Roubaud, Nous, les Moins-que-Rien Fils aînés de Personne 78) ‘It’s a rectangular table, OK, but it’s also a Round Table.’

(d) Example of early uses of soit (1867): (52)

Aïrolo: Ça sent le renfermé. On est captif ici. Cette enceinte me fâche. Protégé, mais coffré. Soit, le gibet me lâche, mais la prison me tient . . . (Hugo, Théâtre en liberté: Mangeront-ils?, 484) ‘Aïrolo: It smells musty. We are prisoners here. This fortress disturbs me. Protected, but shut in. True, I’m free of the gallows, but prison still holds me . . .’

(d) Example of recent uses of soit (2010): (53)

Soit, c’est une idée des plus saugrenues que de se rendre là-bas en contrebande mais, après tout, elle est peu ou prou dans son droit de connaître le Mesnil: elle n’y entre pas en voleuse, puisqu’il appartient à sa famille. (Garat, Pense à demain, 408) ‘OK, it is a most eccentric idea to turn up there in secret, but, after all, she is more or less within her rights to get to know Mesnil: she doesn’t go there as a thief, since it belongs to her family.’

The occurrences of soit as an autonomous unit are exclusively dialogic until the 18th century. Its earliest monologic occurrences are those where it is directly followed by mais and where it concerns a constituent previously expressed by a first speaker, as in (50). Such sequences convey a strong dialogic interpretation. In monologic configurations, the most frequent position for soit is the final one (p, soit, mais q), still used in contemporary French (see (51)).This also emphasizes its dialogic value: after expressing p, the speaker signals her agreement with what she has just said, and then adds q. It is rare to find it in the classical concessive configuration certes, p, mais q. The first occurrences are from the 19th century (see (52)).

256

Corinne Rossari

The general tendency is the following: soit is more frequently used in dialogic structures, until the 18th century. This use continues in contemporary French, but it is enriched by uses of the (d) type, whose first occurrences are from the 19th, as in (52). Such a function is consistent with its verbal lexical source (être ‘to be’). As discussed in Chapter 2, the markers that derive from verbs are good candidates to convey intersubjective values and meanings. The occurrence of soit in dialogic structure in prior uses may be the result of its deverbal morphology. The same tendency can be noticed for d’accord (54), which derives from a verbal phrase (être d’accord ‘agree’). It is never used in regular concessive configuration (d’accord, p, mais q) before the 20th century: (54)

Emmanuel, [ . . . ] je n’avais pas compris combien c’était important pour toi. C’était important pour toi aussi. Pour nous. D’accord, c’était important, mais il faut que tu comprennes qu’il n’y a pas que toi . . . (Carrère, Un roman russe, 244) ‘Emmanuel, [ . . . ] I did not understand how important it was for you. It was important for you too. For us. I agree, it was important, but you have to understand that there is only you . . . ’

(a) Example of early uses of certes (1885): (55)

La solution politique, la voici: réconcilier ces deux frères. Est-ce possible? Certes. (Hugo, Choses vues, 1335) ‘The political solution, here it is: reconcile these two brothers. Is it possible? Certainly.’

(a) Example of recent uses of certes (1996): (56)

‘Alors, Borinka, tu reconnais? J’avais raison?’ ‘Certes.’ (Schreiber, Un silence d’environ une demi-heure, 540) ‘ “So, Borinka, you admit? I was right?” “Sure”.’

(b) Example of early uses of certes (1910): (57)

‘Ne trouvez-vous pas l’odeur de ce jardin bien délicieuse?’ ‘Certes, mais ce mur . . . (Milosz, L’Amoureuse initiation, 144) ‘ “Don’t you find the smell of this garden absolutely delightful?” “Certainly, but this wall . . .” ’

(b) Example of recent uses of certes (1997): (58)

Achille: Oui, mais il n’est pas question de toi là-dedans, ni de moi. Aristote ne raisonne que sur des figures abstraites La Tortue: Certes, mais nieras-tu être le champion de la rapidité? (Roubaud, Mathématique: récit, 172) ‘Achille: Yes, but it is not about you, there, or me. Aristotle reasons only on abstract figures. La Tortue: Certainly, but would you deny being the champion of speed?’

How does a concessive value emerge?

257

(c) Example of early uses of certes (1552): (59)

Ô homme vieulx, les soubdars desormais Jeunes et fors te lassent certes, mais Ta vigueur est resolue, . . . (Rabelais, Tiers livre, 87) ‘O, old man, the soldiers now Young and strong dishearte you, certainly, but your strength is resolute’

(c) Example of recent uses of certes (2011): (60)

En quelques mois, quelques semaines, je couche avec quatre femmes qui, chacune à sa manière, m’aiment. Femmes fantômes certes, mais elles ont leur mot à dire sur moi. (Doubrovsky, Un homme de passage, 149) ‘In a few months, weeks, I sleep with four women, each of whom loves me in her own way. Ghost women, to be sure, but they all have something to say about me.’

(d) Example of early uses of certes (1515): (61) Certes, je ne sçay, dit l’oste, mais à mon advis il me semble que se sont trois Allemens. (Vigneulles, Les Cent Nouvelles nouvelles, 25). ‘Surely, I don’t know, says the host, but in my opinion it seems to me that they are three Germans.’ (d) Example of recent uses of certes (1989): (62)

Personne ne pourra savoir si j’ai ou non tiré. Certes, il manquera un trou dans la cible, mais ce sera parce que je l’aurai ratée. (Juliet, L’Année de l’éveil, 269) ‘Nobody will be able to know if I shot or not. Certainly, a hole will be missing on the target, but that will be because I’d missed.’

This brief overview of the occurrences of certes shows that before the 19th century, unlike soit, it is always used with an assertion. The assertion can be reduced to oui or non from the earliest occurrences to the most recent: (63)

Nicot: Et pourquoy? ne cognoit il pas mieux que le medecin ce qui luy est bon, et ce qu’il pourroit bien manger? Aubert: Non certes. (Brués (1557) Les Dialogues de Guy de Brués [ . . . ], 272) ‘Nicot: And why? Doesn’t he know better than the doctor what is good for him, what he might eat? Aubert: No, certainly not.’

(64)

Ai-je même le droit de demander la Vérité, si je considère cette vérité comme un gain? Non certes. Si cette Vérité devient pour moi quelque chose dont je puisse tirer vanité? Non, non. (Queneau, Journaux 1914–1965, 475) ‘Do I have the right to the Truth, if I consider this truth a benefit? Certainly not. If this Truth becomes for me something that I can take pride in? No, no.’

258

Corinne Rossari

The regular concessive sequence, certes p, mais q, occurs already in the 16th century (see (61)). In this respect too, certes is different from soit, since the latter occurs in regular concessive structures only in the 19th century (see (52)). In more recent uses (from the 19th century) certes can occur as an autonomous constituent to express a dialogic agreement (see (55)). In approximate the same period, it can be found followed directly by mais (see (57)). These observations correspond exactly to what is assumed in the diachronic analysis of Rodríguez Somolinos (1995): certes is equivalent to certainement, differing from it on account of the frequency of the uses where it is combined with mais. The co-occurrence certainement þ mais is ten times less frequent than that of certes þ mais, but it is as old (from the 16th century).6 Such functioning is consistent with its adverbial lexical source. As pointed out by Ghezzi in Chapter 2, markers that are derived from adverbs ‘seem to be more related to discourse structuring values’. The occurrence of certes in monologic structure in prior uses may be the result of its adverbial origin. However, whichever their original tendency, both soit and certes have acquired uses that cancel it: soit has developed monologic uses and certes dialogic ones.

13.8 Synthesis of diachronic perspective It seems then that there is no evolution in the meaning of these markers, but rather an evolution in the way they are used in discourse. The monologic use is prior to the dialogic one for certes; the contrary for soit. This is due to their core meanings: certes is a sentence adverbial serving to strengthen an assertion, and soit is an illocutionary adverb serving to express an agreement. The development involves their exploitation in discourse: a dialogic adverb (such as soit) tends to be used in a monologic way, and a monologic one such as certes tends to be used dialogically. Their concessive use is not the result of an evolution in their meaning, but the result of their integration in one peculiar discourse configuration which corresponds to the definition given for the concessive interpretation illustrated by (6).

13.9 Conclusion The concessive value of a discourse results from a contrast between content presented as previously conceived and thus accepted, and content presented as endorsed. The correlate markers help to access this interpretation, by giving to p the status of already conceived for the first marker (certes, en effet, effectivement,

6 e.g. in response to the search for certes, mais, and certainement, mais, there are 844 occurrences in FRANTEXT for the former and 76 for the latter.

How does a concessive value emerge?

259

d’accord, soit) and the status of accepted for p and endorsed for q for the second marker (usually mais). None of the markers can be considered as in itself conveying a concessive value, but any one of them helps it to emerge, by assigning to p and q the right discourse status. The markers introducing the p sequence differ, on the one hand, in relation to the illocutionary or content level of the utterance to which they react and, on the other, in relation to the way they react to the information state expressed by the addressee’s utterance. Certes indicates that information state represented by the previous utterance is obvious (probably because of its strengthening value), whereas en effet and effectivement indicate that the speaker shares the same information state. D’accord and soit react to the illocutionary force of the utterance. The synchronic and diachronic analysis of these markers show that linguistic change is not only a question of pragmaticalization (including or not grammaticalization), but a wider phenomenon which relies inter alia on the stylistic habits of speakers—such as a seemingly recent one consisting in the colouring of a speaker’s own discourse with dialogic features.

13.10 Appendix: French text sources Angot, Chirstine (1999). L’inceste. Paris: Librairie générate française. Baudelaire, Charles (1857). Nouvelles histoires extraordinaires [trad.], 1857. Paris: Gallimard. Hervé-Bazin, Jean-Pierre (1970). L’école des pères. Paris: Les Éd. du Seuil. Benoziglio, Jean-Luc (1980). Cabinet portrait. Paris: Éd. du Seuil. Bloy. Léon (1900). Journal 1: Mon journal: 1896–1900. Paris: Mercure de France. Brués, Guy de (1557). Les Dialogues de Guy de Brués contre les nouveaux académiciens. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. Camus, Albert (1959). Dostoievski, Fiodor Mikhaïlovitch, Les Possédés [adaptation], Paris: Gallimard. Carrère, Emmanuel (2007). Un roman russe. Paris: P.O.L. Chevrier, François-Antoine (1761). Le Colporteur: histoire morale et critique. London: J. Nourse, s.d.. Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de (1776). Le Commerce et le gouvernement considérés relativement l’un à l’autre: t. 2. Amsterdam and Paris: Jombert et Collot. D’Eaubonne, Françoise (1980). L’indicateur du réseau: contre-mémoires. Paris: Encre. De Gaulle, Charles (1970). Le Renouveau (1958–1962). Paris: Plon. Doubrovsky, Serge (2011). Un homme de passage. B. Grasset. Garat, Anne-Marie (2010). Pease à demain. Arles: Actes Sud. Gibeau, Yves (1952). Allons z’enfants. Paris: Calmann-Levy. Hugo, Victor (1862 [1881]). Les Misérables. Paris: Laffont. Hugo, Victor (1867). Théâtre en liberté: Mangeront-ils?. Paris: Laffont. Hugo, Victor (1885). Choses vues. Paris: Laffont. Juliet, Charles (1989). L’Année de l’éveil. Paris: Gallimard.

260

Corinne Rossari

Lagarce, Jean-Luc (2007). Journal 1977–1990. Besançon: les Solitaires intempestifs. Lespinasse, Julie de (1776). Lettres à M. de Guibert (1769–1776). Paris: Charpentier. Martin du Gard, Roger (1932). Un taciturne. Paris: Gallimard. Mersenne, P. Marin (1641). Correspondance: t. 10: 1640–1641. Paris: Éd. du CNRS. Milosz, Oscar (1910). L’Amoureuse initiation. Paris: Silvaire. Molière (1661). L’École des maris. Paris: Hachette. Molière (1663). Dèpit amoureux. Paris: Hachette Piron, Alexis (1738). La Mètromanie, Paris: Garnier. Queneau, Raymond (1940). Journaux 1914–1965. Paris: Gallimard. Rabelais, François (1552). Tiers livre. Paris: Champion. Roubaud, Jacques (1997). Mathématique: récit. Paris: Les Éd. du Seuil Roubaud, Jacques (2006). Nous, les Moins-que-Rien, Fils aînés de Personne: 12 (+ 1) autobiographies. Paris: Fayard. Sabatier, Robert (1985). David et Olivier. Paris: Albin Michel. Sand, George (1831). Correspondance: 1831. Paris: Garnier. Schreiber, Boris (1996). Un silence d’environ une demi-heure. Paris: Le Cherche Midi. Triolet, Elsa (1945). Le Premier accroe coûte deux cents francs. Paris: Denoël. Vigneulles, Philippe (1515). Les Cent Nouvelles nouvelles. Geneva: Droz. Yourcenar, Marguerite (1988). Le Labyrinthe du monde: III Quoi? L’Éternité. Paris: Gallimard.

Conclusion The development of functional roles and Romance languages: Processes and patterns PIE R A MO L I N E L L I

Introduction This volume gathers contributions devoted to the analysis of Romance forms having in common a more or less developed procedural function, namely discourse and pragmatic markers, which derive from forms with a propositional meaning, encoding concepts. Some contributions have focused on these markers in their development from their common language ancestor, Latin. Therefore, in the volume both synchronic and diachronic approaches have been balanced in order to describe recurrent morphosyntactic, semantic, and textual properties of markers, taking into consideration both the paths that describe their diachronic developments and the synchronic characterization of their uses. The aim of the volume has been to discuss relevant implications deriving from the analysis of both processes (mechanics), properties and patterns (mechanisms) involved in functional pragmatic changes in genealogically related languages. This final chapter incorporates suggestions and issues that emerge from various contributions taking into consideration the synchronic description of these processes and patterns, their diachronic dimension, and the integration of the two approaches. The points that arise in the following pages are intended to enrich the ongoing debate on discourse and pragmatic markers, on properties that characterize synchronically these elements, on the diachronic patterns of their developments, and on their mutual influence. For these comments the author of course takes full responsibility.

262

Piera Molinelli

Synchronic processes and patterns A first group of topics which have been discussed in relation to functional markers concerns the synchronic description of their nature and properties, the distinction between uses that perform discourse-structuring functions and uses that reveal the speaker’s stance and her relationship with the interlocutor. This functional approach has been complemented by considerations that relate to how pragmatic functions correlate with morphosyntactic features of the source lexemes (e.g. position in the utterance, type of utterance, original semantic meaning) and, more generally, with discourse and conversational structure. The lexical sources of functional signals which have been analysed in this volume comprise both verb-based and adverb-based markers. These signals have been shown to represent strategic resources commonly used by speakers in communicative exchanges to organize and manage texts or conversational turns, to negotiate and introduce points of view, and to index the interactional context, that is, to establish and refine social relationships. These items have been shown to have a contextual anchoring either in the text or in the communicative situation, being therefore strictly bound to the text they occurr in or to the dialogic context at the interactional level. The specific values of a given signal within a text or context have been assessed in a language with both synchronic and contrastive approaches, taking into consideration peculiar and/or overlapping functions in cognate markers (see the chapters by Iliescu on Romanian, French, and Italian attention getters, Costachescu on French and Romanian disagreement markers, and Popescu on the highly polyfunctional Romanian and French markers atunci and alors). These markers can be used with the three different main aims of seeking acceptance by the interlocutor of:   

the propositional content and the organization of discourse; the (social) act of speaking; the speaker herself.

Thus indexing certain features of the context of interaction. As various contributions in both parts have shown, these functions can fruitfully be seen as clustering around three main macrofunctions: textual cohesion and coherence, social cohesion, and speaker’s personal stance (see Ghezzi, Chapter 2). Depending on functions performed, these markers can be better defined in terms of discourse markers and pragmatic markers. The first relate to the structure of discourse, guaranteeing textual cohesion and coherence, and specifying how the message and its content are to be correctly interpreted. The latter have an (inter)personal value, thus serving interactive goals like negotiation of prior claims, introduction of alternative or

The development of functional roles and Romance

263

new points of view, and attention to the interlocutor’s face. Pragmatic markers also indicate the subjective expression of the speaker’s stance in relation to the content of the uttering process or to the context of interaction. This distinction allows disambiguation of the nature of pragmatic vs discourse markers which can no longer be understood as synonyms, as often found in the literature. Very importantly, the functions described above have to be accounted for in terms of gradient, rather than discrete, relationships, as the units involved are prototypically multifunctional. For instance, disagreement and exasperation markers have been shown to be highly polyfunctional, as they operate both as discourse markers— indexing the structure of discourse—and as pragmatic markers—signalling the speaker’s personal stance towards the interlocutor or the previous stretch of discourse (Chapter 4, Costachescu). Similar considerations have been made in relation to many of the markers analysed in the present volume (see Pons Bordería on Sp. o sea, Hansen’s and Squartini’s chapters on Romance descendants of Lat. iam, Macário Lopes on Port. aliás, Popescu on Rom. atunci and Fr. alors, and Rossari on certes, soit as concessive markers in French). The crucial point is that multifunctionality of markers operates both paradigmatically and syntagmatically, as the same unit in different contexts of interaction can paradigmatically perform different functions, and the same unit in the same context can syntagmatically perform functions which index different communicative planes (cf. also Bazzanella’s (2001) notion of polyfunctionality in absentia and in praesentia, respectively). Therefore, the principled distinction among different macrofunctions should be understood in terms of gradience, that is, in terms of a continuum partially admitting functional overlapping between meanings. Many markers, meanwhile, are not frozen forms, but still maintain multiple meanings which, in the case of verbs, can be attributed to a paradigm that is still productive. This is for instance the case of It. prego, discussed in Chapter 5 and exemplified below in (1) and (2). Both examples can be considered grammatically acceptable and appropriate in situations where guests are entering a room. However, in (1) prego is used as a frozen form (in the 1st person singular of the present indicative), which is not integrated into the syntactic structure of the utterance, and which is used by the speaker to mitigate the following imperative in the 2nd person plural (accomodatevi). In (2) instead, preghiamo is the 1st person plural of the present indicative of the verb pregare ‘to pray’, is completely integrated into the syntactic structure of the utterance, and is modulated and modified by the adverb vivamente ‘strongly’. Both uses of the verb in these examples have a mitigating value in relation to the speaker’s request, but the degree of illocutionary force is higher in (2), which is more common in formal contexts and in which the verb is still productive and can still be modulated.

264

Piera Molinelli

(1)

Prego, accomodatevi ‘Please, take a seat’

(2)

Vi preghiamo vivamente di accomodarvi lit. ‘We strongly pray you to take a seat’

The contributions to this volume have shown that certain word classes, such as verbs and adverbs, represent common sources of functional markers both across cognate languages and across time. This is for instance the case for verbs of perception, which in Romance languages1 represent common sources of attention getters (Iliescu, Chapter 3), of speech act verbs from which courtesy markers are frequently derived (e.g. the case of Latin and Italian investigated by Ghezzi and Molinelli, Chapter 5, and of Romanian, analysed by Livescu, Chapter 6). Similar considerations also apply to verb phrases which develop into disagreement markers in French and Romanian (see Costachescu, Chapter 4). Likewise, temporal and aspectual adverbs have been shown to represent common sources of functional markers (e.g. the case of Lat. iam, Med. Fr. ja, and Fr. déjà investigated by Hansen in Chapter 8, Piedmontese Regional Italian già examined by Fedriani and Miola and by Squartini in Chapters 9 and 10 respectively, or of Port. aliás analysed by Macário Lopes in Chapter 11, of Fr. alors and Rom. atunci studied by Popescu in Chapter 12). Given the functional versatility of both verb-based and adverb-based markers, a number of contributions in this volume have shown that a functional approach to their description complements reflections on their formal properties. Different studies2 have shown that the development of pragmatic functions has specific formal correlates, regardless of the word class of the source lexeme. Scholars agree on the following properties of markers:    

they are functionally extra-sentential, have a variable position and frequently appear peripherally in the utterance; they have specific prosodic contours; they have variable scope; they have procedural, rather than propositional meaning.

Other formal properties, instead, are class-specific,3 as is the case for verb-based markers such as It. prego and Sp. mira:

This is a widespread tendency also cross-linguistically (see Fedriani, Ghezzi, and Van Olmen, 2012). Although functional approaches to the analysis of discourse and pragmatic markers are more common, a number of studies focus on their formal properties, such as Schiffrin (1987: 31, 323, 328), Bazzanella (1995), Brinton (1996), Martín Zorraquino and Portolés Lázaro (1999), Dostie (2004), Waltereit and Detges (2007: 63), Fagard (2010), and Beeching and Detges (forthcoming). 3 Cf. also Molinelli (submitted), and Ghezzi and Molinelli (forthcoming). 1 2

The development of functional roles and Romance   

 

265

They do not admit complementation or negation. They only sporadically appear with the subject. Their tense and mood are most frequently the present indicative (Ghezzi and Molinelli, and Livescu, Chapters 5 and 6) or the imperative (Iliescu, Costachescu, Chapters 3 and 4), the present subjunctive (Pons Bordería, Chapter 7), or the present conditional.4 The number is frequently singular, but instances of 2nd plural and 1st plural are attested with specific pragmatic functions (e.g. modulation).5 Person is typically 1st or 2nd, more rarely 3rd (especially with verba dicendi). This should not be surprising, considering the inherently intersubjective nature of language and the dialogic nature of the uttering event, which always implies a speaker and an addressee (cf. Benveniste 1971).6 The uttering event represents an individual act by which the subject, i.e. the speaker, transforms the abstract possibilities (langue) into concrete strings (parole). It is an act by which the speaker constructs herself as a ‘subject’ through a series of markers which include the ‘I–here–now’, i.e. the system of pronouns, spatial and temporal coordinates, but also discourse and pragmatic markers.

Correspondingly, classes of adverbs, as in the case of temporal and phasal adverbs, tend to develop functions associated with discourse structuring and are subject to a progressive pragmatic strengthening. Further, such adverbs increase the degree of subjectification of the unit on which they have scope. This is so because properties associated with temporal and phasal adverbs include the explicit modulation of sequentiality in speech, overtly marking ‘before’ and ‘after’ relations among segments of discourse (see Hansen, Fedriani and Miola, Squartini, Chapters 8, 9, and 10). The fact that each marker can develop multiple meanings and functions has also been correlated with properties of modal particles. As illustrated by Squartini (Chapter 10), in some uses, the same forms (e.g. It. già) can have double interpretations as modal particles or discourse markers. This double interpretation is made possible by the common functional ground shared by the form within different contexts of use. In the case of It. già, analysed in Chapter 10, this common functional ground is represented by information state, following the definition given in An example is It. direi ‘say-SBJV.1SG’, as in this intervention in parliamentary debate 332 of 24 March 1998: Signor Presidente, qui si arriva, direi, ad un assurdo ‘Mr. President, we come here, I would say, to an absurd [situation]’ (http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg31/lavori/stenografici/sed%20332/pdfs008.pdf ). See also Ghezzi and Molinelli (forthcoming). 5 This is the case of diciamo in ma noi, diciamo, siamo giovani di spirito ‘but we, let’s say, are young at heart’, where 1st person plural is exploited pragmatically with a hedging value that includes the interlocutor’s point of view. See Ghezzi and Molinelli (forthcoming) on Italian, and Fedriani and Molinelli (2013) on Latin. 6 Recent debates on the role of the left and right periphery have emphasized that language change can be motivated either dialogually (two or more speakers) or dialogically (two or more viewpoints). See Beeching and Detges (forthcoming) and contributions by Pons Bordería (Ch. 7) and Rossari (Ch. 13). 4

266

Piera Molinelli

Chapter 2. Depending on its scope, the form can refer to other situational dimensions. When già indexes given information, it has an extrasentential scope and functions as discourse marker; on the contrary, when it indexes interactional stances, it is used to modify the illocutionary values of speech acts, therefore operating as modal particle. These two subdimensions have been reconstructed as different factors that independently influence pragmaticalization patterns in cognate forms (It. già and Fr. déjà, Chapter 10). This differentiation is highly relevant to the discussion in this volume, as the discourse plane of information state is pragmatic in nature, as it is connected with the degree of activation of relevant information in discourse, but it is also connected with the propositional content of the utterance, and therefore represents an intermediate area between discourse and grammar (see Squartini, Chapter 10; also Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva 2011). The case of the discourse plane of information state is relevant also because it suggests that the identification of a rigid dichotomy between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization processes (see ‘Diachronic processes and patterns’ below) may not be relevant in accounting for developments of forms and corresponding functions, as in the case of It. già discussed in this volume. In this respect, the data analysed here seem to indicate that, in order to grasp the different evolutionary stages represented by French déjà and regional Italian già, a dividing line should be drawn between ‘discourse grammar’, having to do with information flow, and more extended ‘pragmatic’ modulations of illocutionary force, represented by the use of French déjà or of Piedmontese Regional Italian già as speech act downtoners.

Diachronic processes and patterns A second group of issues which have been discussed through the volume concerns the role of diachronic developments in the account of the multifunctional nature of many markers. Relevant questions addressed related to how new pragmatic functions of words become entrenched in different languages, and to how and why forms deriving from interpretation of whole utterances or parts of utterances (as phrases) develop pragmatic functions. These issues have been analysed taking into consideration the diachronic development of pragmatic functions of markers in genealogically related languages and the relationship between the functions performed (from discourse structuring to interactional) and the morphosyntactic properties of source lexemes discussed above. Moving from a common ancestor language (Latin), these elements have been observed to develop new pragmatically-oriented and discourse-based values that typically arise in dialogic contexts in cross-linguistically recurrent, coherent paths. Observing the gradual emergence, behaviour, and use of functional signals in Latin

The development of functional roles and Romance

267

has revealed many correspondences with similar paths of development in modern languages. Moving from these correspondences, research can benefit in terms of analysis of both written and spoken sources, as this volume has highlighted with regard to some Romance languages. The development of new pragmatic- and/or discourse-based functions takes place because, to achieve their interactional goals, speakers may use some items ‘strategically’ in ways that may deviate slightly from their conventional sense, exploiting particular nuances of meaning in the context of interaction, thus co-opting and redefining them for pragmatic purposes. This results in patterns of widespread and stable diachronic development. Semantic properties, together with morphosyntactic and distributional characteristics of the source lexeme, play an important role in the process of intersubjectification, which has semantic as well as syntactic correlates. Pragmatic-semantic change occurs sequentially: new meanings appear in syntactically most favourable contexts,7 advancing to less favourable ones, and finally innovative meanings become more abstract and polysemous, less dependent on the surrounding syntactic and semantic context (Ghezzi and Molinelli, Chapter 5; Company Company 2006). In this volume the process giving rise to intersubjectification has been shown to have correlates in the function–form relationship and has been observed through constructional (form–meaning) variability in synchronic distributions (Ghezzi and Molinelli, Chapter 5). Several chapters suggest that some peculiarities shown by functional markers and by their different paths of development entail gradual and constructional sequences of micro-changes. These developments exploit strategies often related to interactional functions and to mitigation (Dostie 2004), and have been detected through the degree of frozenness of form and changes in frequency of specific markers. There is considerable evidence in previous literature that extra-clausal stance markers derive from non-stance, non-discursive, referential meanings and that, as Traugott (2010a) suggests, meanings are recruited by the speaker to encode and regulate attitudes and beliefs (subjectification), and, once subjectified, may be recruited to encode meanings centred on the interlocutor (intersubjectification). As some contributions have shown (Fedriani and Miola, Squartini, Chapters 9 and 10), units can progressively develop types of subjective or intersubjective meaning depending on the discourse plane which they affect. Subjective meanings do not always develop first prior to intersubjective values. In this regard Cornillie (2008) cites the case of the Spanish evidential construction parece que ‘it seems that’, which can be interpreted intersubjectively, and which historically precedes the epistemic construction parecer + infinitive, which only allows for a subjective interpretation.

7

Bridging contexts in Heine’s terms (2002).

268

Piera Molinelli

Along a similar line, Fedriani and Ghezzi (forthcoming) study the evolution of pragmatic markers as Lat. age, It. dai ‘come on’, showing that it is not possible to identify a cline from subjective to intersubjective values. Also in relation to the diachronic evolution of functional markers, many of the contributions in this volume with a diachronic approach have discussed the relationship between hotly debated notions such as grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. Far from taking a fixed position, the chapters demonstrate how referring to either grammaticalization (e.g. Macário Lopes and Pons Bordería) and pragmaticalization (e.g. Ghezzi and Molinelli, Hansen) depends on where one sets the dividing line between grammar and pragmatics. What is interesting is the scientific enrichment that derives from a thorough analysis of contexts in which pragmatic changes take place. Some studies (e.g. Macário Lopes, Chapter 11) challenge the traditional account on the developments of some classes of functional markers (e.g. those derived from adverbs) within the grammaticalization framework. The hypothesis put forward in this framework supports the idea that markers represent the outcome of a longlasting and gradual process of change involving regular clines, and that the direction of change is regular: from content meaning to procedural meaning. However, as the case of Port. aliás has shown, some markers do not support the idea of a horizontal pathway of diachronic development—the idea of linear paths of meanings ordered in a continuum, with two interpretations generally overlapping in transitions periods. The polyfunctionality of some markers (Port. aliás) seem to have been an inherent property through their history. Procedural and pragmatic meanings are already present in the oldest occurrences of the items. Different functions are constrained by contexts of use, such as discourse genres, and traditions. As other studies have shown (e.g. Pons Bordería, Chapter 7), diachronic evolutions of discourse-pragmatic items imply two syntactic processes: the first entails a rebracketing and a process of syntactic liberation from the sentence, and the second involves new integration within larger units. As Pons Bordería claims, studies on grammaticalization have paid special attention to the first part of this diachronic path, while the second part seems to have gone unnoticed. Other studies in this volume, relating to markers derived from both verbs and adverbs (Ghezzi and Molinelli, Chapter 5; Hansen, Chapter 8), have shed light on dynamics that characterize pragmatic patterns of change. What emerges from these case studies is that pragmatic functions performed by markers are fairly stable crosslinguistically; what instead is subject to diachronic changes are forms that speakers select to perform these functions. As both contributions show, moving from the Latin markers (i.e. Lat. quaeso ‘please’ and iam ‘by now/already’), forms selected to perform specific pragmatic functions can be substituted in the course of diachronic patterns of functional change which are essentially cyclic in nature.

The development of functional roles and Romance

269

Similarly to Jespersen’s cycles of negation (Jespersen 1917), cycles of pragmaticalization represent frequent, productive, and iterative processes through which lexical elements, which have acquired a pragmatic function, are gradually replaced by different source lexemes, which progressively take over the functions originally performed by the replaced forms. This is what happened to the Latin courtesy marker quaeso. Already in Latin the performative verb quaeso, which is the source lexeme of the Latin courtesy marker, had potentially competing forms such as rogo or precor. In Romanian, rogo acquires pragmatic values associated with politeness, but also maintains its formal verbal properties, as it is still recognized as part of a paradigm. In Italian, the unmarked courtesy marker is instead prego, which derives from Lat. precor. These functional patterns of development at the pragmatic level always correlate with changes at the formal level. As is shown in Chapter 5, in its initial stages the process of pragmaticalization is fostered by some properties of the source lexemes (e.g. the performative value of verbs in the case of courtesy markers such as It. prego). Later the process is reinforced by two factors: the progressive freedom of the item from the syntactic structure of the clause, and its increase in freedom of position and frozenness of form. What still remains unexplored, in part because of the unavailability of spoken data, are the motivations behind the gradual spread of a new form and the corresponding readjustment of the meaning–form correlations. As discussed by Hansen in Chapter 8, it is possible here only to hypothesize that different motivations may be at work. Forms like Lat. iam and It. già, having become extremely polyfunctional, may have increased in frequency and may have been progressively perceived by speakers as too ambiguous or vague. Different motivations, both internal or external to the language system, may also be at work, and processes of change may have been triggered by situations of contact between languages or varieties (see Chapter 9 on It. già).8 Other motivations may also have to do with the speaker’s changing attitudes towards one form: at some point the old form may be perceived by speakers as stereotypically associated with language varieties that, for stylistic reasons, are not considered appealing.

Synchronic and diachronic processes and patterns A third group of issues within this volume concerns the relationship between the diachronic developments of markers and the synchronic functions they perform within genealogically related languages. Several contributions show that the same lexical source can develop diachronically more than one function, as is for

8

See also Cuzzolin and Molinelli (2013).

270

Piera Molinelli

instance the case for Lat. iam, and that the same form can synchronically perform different functions, as in the case for It. già and Fr. déjà. The diachronic study of evolutionary processes involving functional markers has proved relevant in accounting for their polyfunctional nature. Moreover, the analysis of these processes in the various chapters has shed light on the relationship between the pragmaticalized item and its source lexeme, and has shown that synchronic polyfunctionality can be explained as the result of a polysemic source lexeme or as the diachronic semantic change of a lexeme which synchronically is homonymic with the source. Within these pragmatico-semantic changes, interactional features have been shown to play a role (Costachescu, Pons Bordería, and Rossari in Chapters 4, 7, and 13, respectively). In particular, recent interest in dialogue as a locus of change (Traugott 2010b; Beeching and Detges, forthcoming), has prompted a discussion of types of language change which seem to be motivated either dialogually (two or more speakers) or dialogically (two or more viewpoints). The studies in this volume on the functions of verb-based French and Romanian disagreement markers (Costachescu, Chapter 4), Spanish reformulation marker o sea (Pons Bordería, Chapter 7), and the adverbial-based French concessive markers (Rossari, Chapter 13) all show that limiting the analyses of markers to monologic, sentence-based occurrences is an oversimplification. Morphosyntactic, distributional, and semantic properties of verb-based lexical sources make them function more frequently as dialogual markers, with a focus on the social dimension of interaction. In these contexts they more prototypically operate as pragmatic markers. Sources may be classified according to semantic criteria as in the case of perception (Iliescu, Chapter 3), or may be related to their performative use (Ghezzi and Molinelli, Chapter 5; or Livescu, Chapter 6), but their semantic flexibility shows that verbs are as a class prone to pragmaticalize; what all verb-based markers have in common is that their semantic extensions are sufficiently general and abstract to allow them to acquire an intersubjective meaning. However, in addition to these prototypical uses, in the dialogic dimension patterns have been identified where verb-based markers, which are dialogically motivated, also function as discourse markers, indexing discourse coherence and textual cohesion. Similar considerations also relate to adverb-based markers, as in the case of the French and Romanian markers alors and atunci (Popescu, Chapter 12), and Romance descendants of Latin iam (Hansen, Fedriani and Miola, Squartini in Chapters 8, 9, and 10, respectively). Unlike verb-based markers, however, adverb-based markers share a common core of discourse-structuring values into which more interactionally oriented values can be inserted. It is thus to be noted that these items are confirmed as being highly polyfunctional, as they index different discourse planes and situational dimensions simultaneously. However, their more prototypical roles cluster around different macrofunctions.

The development of functional roles and Romance

271

This book has aimed to illustrate the importance of integrating both synchronic and diachronic approaches in the endeavour to understand of the role of pragmatic and discourse markers in each of the languages analysed here. Many issues have necessarily remained unexplored, such as the maintenance vs the creation of new functional markers in rather conservative Romance languages or varieties, such as Ladin, Italian dialects, or Sardinian. The volume is centred around verb- and adverbbased markers, but the Romance languages can be fruitfully analysed also in relation to the properties of noun- and clause-based markers.

References Primary sources BFM: Base de français médiéval. http://bfm.ens-lyon.fr/ BFM CD-ROM: Sophie Prévost, Serge Heiden, and Céline Guillot, Base de français médiéval. Concordances. CD-ROM (2000). BMF: Bases du moyen français. http://www.atilf.fr/dmf Cantacuzino: Constantin Cantacuzino, Istoria Ţării Rumînești, in Mihail Gregorian (ed.), Cronicari munteni, vol. 1 (Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură, 1961), 3–79. CdP: Corpus do Português (2006). Compiled by Mark Davies and Michael Ferreira. http:// www.corpusdoportugues.org CETEMPúblico: Corpus de extractos de textos electrónicos MCT/Público. http://www.lin guateca.pt CFPP2000: Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien. http://cfpp2000.univ-paris3.fr/ C-Oral-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. Ed. Emanuela Cresti and Massimo Moneglia (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2005). CORDE: Corpus de referencia diacrónico del español. Real Academia Española. http://www. rae.es CORV: Corpus de română vorbită: Eșantioane. Ed. Laurenţia Dascălu-Jinga (Bucharest: Oscar Print, 2002). CREA: Corpus de referencia del español actual. Real Academia Española. http://www.rae.es FRANTEXT: Frantext. http://www.frantext.fr/ Greceanu: Radu Greceanu, Viaţa lui Constantin Brîncoveanu, in Mihail Gregorian (ed.), Cronicari munteni, vol. 2 (Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură, 1961), 5–272. IVRLA: Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (ed.), Interacţiunea verbală în limba română actuală. Corpus (selectiv): schiţă de tipologie (Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, 2001). Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc: Anon., Istoria Ţării Rumînești de cînd au descălecat pravoslavnicii creştini (or Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc or Anonimul Cantacuzinesc), in Mihail Gregorian (ed.), Cronicari munteni, vol. 1 (Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură, 1961), 83–224. LIP: Tullio De Mauro et al. (1993), Lessico di frequenza dell’Italiano Parlato. http://badip.unigraz.at/ OVI: Corpus dell’Opera del Vocabolario dell’Italiano antico. http://gattoweb.ovi.cnr.it Dictionaries Battaglia, Salvatore (1988). Grande dizionario della lingua italiana. Turin: UTET. Casteleiro, João Malaca (ed.) (2001). Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa Pontemporânea da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa. Lisbon: Academia das Ciências de Lisboa/Editorial Verbo. Collins and Robert: The Collins Robert French–English Dictionary (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

References

273

DA: Academia Română, Dicţionarul limbii române (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1913–49). DAF: Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, version informatisée. ATILF-Académie française, http://atilf.atilf.fr/academie9.htm DELI: Manlio Cortelazzo and Paolo Zolli, DELI: Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana (Florence: Zanichelli, 1999). DER: Alexandru Ciorănescu, Dicţionar etimologic al limbii române, 2nd edn (1st edn 1958–66) (Bucharest: Editura Saeculum, 2007). DEX: Academia Română/Institutul de Lingvistică Iorgu Iordan, Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române, 2nd edn (Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic, 1998). DHF: Alain Rey (ed.), Dictionnaire historique du français (Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert— SEJER, 2006). DLR: Academia Română, Dicţionarul limbii române (new series) (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1958–2009). DLRC: Academia Română, Dicţionarul limbii române literare contemporane (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1955–57). Ernout, Alfred, and Meillet, Antoine (1979). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots, 4th edn. Paris: Klincksieck. FEW: Walther von Wartburg, Französisches Etymologische Wörterbuch (Bonn, Basel: Zbinden Druck and Verlag, 1948). Fuentes, Catalina (2010). Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid: Arco Libros. GA: Academia Republicii Populare Române, Gramatica limbii române, 2nd edn (2 vols). (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, 1963). GALR I: Academia Română/Institutul de Lingvistică ‘Iorgu Iordan–Al. Rosetti’, Gramatica Limbii Române, vol. 1: Cuvântul (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2005). GALR II: Academia Română /Institutul de Lingvistică ‘Iorgu Iordan–Al. Rosetti’, Gramatica Limbii Române, vol. 2: Enunţul (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2005). Houaiss, Antonio (ed.) (2002). Dicionário Houaiss da língua portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Objectiva. Machado, José Pedro (1967). Dicionário etimológico da língua portuguesa. Lisbon: Confluência. Nocentini, Alberto (2010). Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana. Firenze: Le Monnier. OED: Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com/ Robert: Paul Robert. Le Petit Robert: dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française (Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert, 1992). Santos, Luis (2003). Diccionario de partículas. Salamanca: Luso-Española. TLF: Paul Imbs (dir.), Trésor de la langue française (16 vols) (Paris: Éditions du CNRS/ Gallimard, 1971–94). Version informatisée: http://atilf.atilf.fr./tlf.htm T/M: Tiktin, Hariton (1986). Rumänisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. 2. Überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage von Paul, Miron, Band I-III. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Vaan, Michiel de (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill.

274

References

Secondary sources Aijmer, Karin (1997). I think: an English modal particle. In Toril Swan and Olaf J. Westvik (eds), Modality in Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–47. Aijmer, Karin (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Aijmer, Karin, and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (eds) (2006). Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Aijmer, Karin, and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (2011). Pragmatic markers. In Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren (eds), Discursive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 223–47. Akimoto, Minoji (2000). The grammaticalization of the verb pray. In Olga Fischer, Annette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein (eds), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 67–84. Ameka, Felix (1992). Interjections: the universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 101–18. Ameka, Felix (2006). Interjections. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 743–6. Anscombre, Jean-Claude (1980). Marqueurs et hypermarqueurs de dérivation illocutoire: notions et problèmes. Cahiers de linguistique française 3: 75–124. Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Ducrot, Oswald (1977). Deux mais en français? Lingua 43: 23–40. Apothéloz, Denis, and Nowakowska, Małgorzata (2013). Déjà et le sens des énoncés. Cahiers Chronos 26: 355–86. Ariel, Mira (2008). Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auwera, Johan van der (1998). Phasal adverbials in the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera and Donáll P. Ó Baoill (eds), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 25–145. Avram, Mioara (1997). Gramatica pentru toţi. Bucharest: Editura Humanitas. Battaglia, Salvatore (1998): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Bazzanella, Carla (1995). I segnali discorsivi. In Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi, and Anna Cardinaletti (eds), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 3: Tipi di frase, deissi, formazione delle parole. Bologna: il Mulino, 225–57. Bazzanella, Carla (2001). Segnali discorsivi e contesto. In Wilma Heinrich and Christine Heiss (eds), Modalità e Substandard. Bologna: Clueb, 41–64. Bazzanella, Carla (2003). Discourse markers and politeness in Old Italian. In Gundrun Held (ed.), Partikeln und Höflichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 247–68. Bazzanella, Carla (2006). Discourse markers in Italian: towards a compositional meaning. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Oxford: Elsevier, 449–64. Bazzanella, Carla (2009). Review of Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen, Particles at the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1468–72. Bazzanella, Carla (2010). Segnali discorsivi. In Giampaolo Salvi and Lorenzo Renzi (eds), Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Bologna: il Mulino, 1339–57.

References

275

Bazzanella, Carla, and Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita (2011). Allora and entonces: theoretical problems and empirical data. In Elizaveta Khachaturyan (ed.), Discourse Markers in Romance Languages. Thematic issue, Oslo Studies in Language 3: 7–45. Bazzanella, Carla, Bosco, Cristina, Calaresu, Emilia, Garcea, Alessandro, Guil, Pura, and Radulescu, Anda (2005). Dal latino iam agli esiti nelle lingue romanze: verso una configurazione pragmatica complessiva. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 12: 49–82. Bazzanella, Carla, Bosco, Cristina, Garcea, Alessandro, Gili Fivela, Barbara, Miecznikowski, Johanna, and Tini Brunozzi, Francesca (2007). Italian allora, French alors: functions, convergences and divergences. In Maria Josep Cuenca (ed.), Contrastive Perspectives on Discourse Markers. Thematic issue, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 9–30. Bechara, Evanildo (1999). Moderna gramática portuguesa, 37th edn, revised and enlarged. Rio de Janeiro: Lucerna. Beeching, Kate, and Detges, Ulrich (eds) (forthcoming). Introduction. In Kate Beeching and Ulrich Detges (eds), Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. Beeching, Kate, and Detges, Ulrich (eds) (forthcoming). Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. Beijering, Karin, and Norde, Muriel (2012). Pragmaticalization. Abstract for workshop at ‘New Reflections on Grammaticalization 5’, Edinburgh, July. Benveniste, Émile (1971 [1958]). Subjectivity in language (trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek). In Problems in General Linguistics. Miami: University of Miami Press, 223–30. Bernini, Giuliano (1995). Le profrasi. In Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi, and Anna Cardinaletti (eds), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 3: Tipi di frase, deissi, formazione delle parole. Bologna: il Mulino, 175–222. Berruto, Gaetano (2003). Sul parlante nativo (di italiano). In Hans-Ingo Radatz und Rainer Schlösser (eds), Donum Grammaticorum: Festschrift für Harro Stammerjohann. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1–14. Berruto, Gaetano (2012). Sociolinguistica dell’italiano centemporaneo. Roma: Carocci. Blakemore, Diane (1996). Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32: 325–47. Blakemore, Diane (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire (1990). Le français parlé: études grammaticales. Paris: CNRS. Blumenthal, Peter (2006). Wortprofil im Französischen. Tübingen: Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, Band 332. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, and Kasper, Gabriele (eds) (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita, and Gómez-Jordana Ferary, Sonia (eds) (2014). Marqueurs du discours dans les langues romanes: une approche contrastive. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas. Bouacha, Abdelmadjid Ali (1981). Alors dans le discours pédagogique: épiphénomène ou trace d’opérations discursives? Langue française 50: 39–52. Bracops, Martine (2006). Introduction à la pragmatique. Brussels: De Boeck. Brero, Camillo, and Gandolfo, Renzo (1967). La letteratura in piemontese: dalle origini al Risorgimento. Turin: Casanova.

276

References

Brinton, Laurel (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brinton, Laurel (2009). Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In Ans van Kemenade and Bettelou Los (eds), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 307–34. Brinton, Laurel, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Briz Gómez, Antonio (2001). El uso de o sea en la conversación. In Josse de Kock (ed.), Gramática española: enseñanza e investigación, vol. 1: Apuntes metodológicos. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 287–317. Briz Gómez, Antonio (2002). Otra vez sobre o sea. In Carmen Saralegui and Manuel Casado (eds), Pulchre, bene, recte: estudios en homenaje al prof. Fernando González Ollé. Pamplona: Eunsa, 169–90. Briz Gómez, Antonio, and Grupo Val.Es.Co. (2002). Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales. Madrid: Arco Libros. Briz Gómez, Antonio, and Grupo Val.Es.Co. (2003). Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial. Oralia 6: 7–61. Briz Gómez, Antonio, and Pons Bordería, Salvador (2010). Unidades, marcadores y posición. In Óscar Loureda and Esperanza Acín (eds), Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso, hoy. Madrid: Arco Libros, 523–57. Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: Some Universals of Human Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buchi, Éva (2007). Approche diachronique de la (poli)pragmaticalisation de français déjà (‘Quand le grammème est-il devenu pragmatème, déjà?’). In David A. Trotter (ed.), Actes du XXIVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, vol. 3. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 251–64. Camus Bergareche, Bruno (2006). La expresión de la negación. In Concepción Company Company (ed.), Sintaxis histórica del español, vol. 2. Mexico City: UNAM, 1165–1249. Carel, Marion (2011). L’entrelacement argumentatif: lexique, discours, blocs sémantiques. Paris: Champion. Carel, Marion (to appear). Polyphonie et évidentialité. In Corinne Rossari, Marion Carel, and Claudia Ricci (eds), Pour une approche pragmatique de la notion d’évidentialité: le cas de l’emprunt en français et de l’inférence en italien. Carlier, Anne, and De Mulder, Walter (2010). The emergence of the definite article: ille in competition with ipse in Late Latin. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification, and Grammaticalization. Berlin: de Gruyter, 241–75. Carlier, Anne, Lamiroy, Béatrice, and De Mulder, Walter (eds) (2012). On the Pace of Grammaticalization in Romance. Thematic issue, Folia Linguistica 46. Casado Velarde, Manuel (1996). Notas sobre la historia de los marcadores textuales de explicación es decir y o sea. In Manuel Casado Velarde et al. (eds), Scripta philologica in memoriam Manuel Taboada Cid, vol. 1. La Coruña: Universidade da Coruña, 321–8. Casteleiro, João Malaca (2001): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Cerruti, Massimo (2009). Strutture dell’italiano regionale: morfosintassi di una varietà diatopica in prospettiva sociolinguistica. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

References

277

Chafe, Wallace (1987). Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow: Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Choi, Soonja (1995). The development of epistemic sentence-ending modal forms and functions in Korean children. In Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman (eds), Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 165–204. Claridge, Claudia, and Arnovick, Leslie (2010). Pragmaticalization and discoursization. In Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 165–92. Clivio, Gianrenzo P. (1974). Il dialetto di Torino nel Seicento. L’Italia dialettale 37: 18–120. Coculescu, Steluţa (2003). Fonctionnement de alors. Philologica 4(2): 135–40. Colella, Gianluca (2012). Performativi espliciti in italiano antico. In Barbara Wehr and Frédéric Nicolosi (eds), Pragmatique historique et syntaxe. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 23–46. Company Company, Concepción (2004). (¿De?)gramaticalización, subjetivización y reanálisis: la flexibilidad categorial del verbo en la historia del español. Revista de filología española 84: 29–66. Company Company, Concepción (2006). Zero in syntax, ten in pragmatics: subjectification and syntactic cancellation. In Angeliki Athanasiadou, Costas Canakis, and Bert Cornille (eds), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 375–97. Coniglio, Marco (2006). German modal particles in the functional structure of IP. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 57–95. Coniglio, Marco (2008). Modal particles in Italian. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 91–129. Cornillie, Bert (2008). On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-)auxiliaries in Spanish. In Elena Seoane and María José López-Couso (eds), Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 55–76. Cortés Rodriguez, Luis (1991). Sobre conectores expletivos y muletillas en el español hablado. Málaga: Ágora. Cristea, Teodora (1986). Modalité et perception: remarques sur les valeurs du verbe voir en français contemporain. Revue roumaine de linguistique 31: 245–54. Cristea, Teodora (1987). Parasynonymie et constitution de classes lexico-grammaticales: remarques sur les verbes de perceptions en français. Revue roumaine de linguistique 32: 225–36. Cuenca, Maria Josep (2001). Los conectores parentéticos como categoría gramatical. Lingüística española actual 23: 211–35. Cuenca, Maria Josep (2003). Two ways to reformulate: a contrastive analysis of reformulation markers, Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1069–93. Cuenca, Maria Josep, and Bach, Carme (2007). Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers, Discourse Studies 9: 149–75. Cuenca, Maria Josep, and Marín, Maria Josep (2000). Verbos de perceptión gramaticalizados como conectores: análisis contrastivo español-catalán. Revista española de lingüística aplicada 1: 215–37. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cunha, Celso, and Cintra, Lindley (1984). Nova gramática do Português contemporâneo. Lisbon: Sá da Costa.

278

References

Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Molinelli, Piera (2013). Contatto linguistico e tipologie di mutamento: sintassi e pragmatica a confronto. In Luca Lorenzetti and Marco Mancini (eds), Le lingue del Mediterraneo antico: culture, mutamenti, contatti. Rome: Carocci, 95–121. Dascălu-Jinga, Laurenţia (2011). De la enunţ minimal la marcă discursivă: mă rog. In Laurenţia Dascălu-Jinga (ed.), Româna vorbită actuală (ROVA): corpus și studii. Bucharest: Academia Română, 332–54. Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Herbert (eds) (2010). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: de Gruyter. Degand, Liesbeth, and Fagard, Benjamin (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar. Functions of Language 18: 29–56. Degand, Lisbeth, and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (eds) (2011). Grammaticalization, Pragmaticalization and/or (Inter)Subjectification: Methodological Issues for the Study of Discourse Markers. Thematic issue, Linguistics 49(2). DeLancey, Scott (1986). Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 203–13. DeLancey, Scott (1997). Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52. Delbecque, Nicole, and Maldonado, Ricardo (2011). Spanish ya: a conceptual pragmatic anchor. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 73–98. Del Saz Rubio, María (2007). English Discourse Markers of Reformulation. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. De Smet, Hendrik, and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 365–92. Detges, Ulrich, and Waltereit, Richard (2009). Diachronic pathways and pragmatic strategies: different types of pragmatic particles from a diachronic point of view. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Jaqueline Visconti (eds), Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald, 43–61. Diessel, Holger (1999). Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Diessel, Holger (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 463–89. Diewald, Gabriele (2002). A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Ilsa Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 103–20. Diewald, Gabriele (2006). Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam/Leiden: Elsevier/ Brill, 403–25. Diewald, Gabriele (2011a). Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. In Lisbeth Degand and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), Grammaticalization, Pragmaticalization and/or (Inter)Subjectification: Methodological Issues for the Study of Discourse Markers. Thematic issue, Linguistics 49: 365–90.

References

279

Diewald, Gabriele (2011b). Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 450–61. Diewald, Gabriele, Kresić, Marijana, and Smirnova, Elena (2009). The grammaticalization channels of evidentials and modal particles in German: integration in textual structures as a common feature. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Jacqueline Visconti (eds), Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald, 189–209. Dörper, Sven (1990). Recherches sur ma + Inf je vais en français. Revue québécoise de linguistique 19: 101–27. Dostie, Gaétane (1998). Deux marqueurs discursifs issus de verbes de perception: de écouter/ regarder à écoute/regarde. Cahiers de lexicologie 73: 85–106. Dostie, Gaétane (2004). Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck/Duculot. Dostie, Gaétane (2009). Discourse markers and regional variation in French: a lexico-semantic approach. In Kate Beeching, Nigel Armstrong, and Françoise Gadet (eds), Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 201–14. Drescher, Martina, and Frank-Job, Barbara (eds) (2006). Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes: approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Ducrot, Oswald (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann. Ducrot, Oswald (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit. Ducrot, Oswald (2001). Quelques raisons destinguer ‘locuteurs’ et ‘énonciateurs’. Polyphonie— linguistique et littéraire 3: 20–41. Enghels, Renata (2007). Les modalités de perception visuelle et auditoire. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Erman, Britt, and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt (1993). Pragmaticalization: the case of ba’ and you know. Studier I modern språkvetenskap 10: 76–93. Ernout, Alfred, and Meillet, Antoine (1979): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Escobar, Anna María (2007). Performative verbs in Spanish monoligual and bilingual colonial court documents. In José Comacho et al. (eds), Romance Linguistics 2006. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 127–40. Estellés, Maria (2009). The Spanish discourse marker por cierto: a non-standard case of grammaticalization. In Corinne Rossari, Claudia Ricci, and Adriana Spiridon (eds), Grammaticalization and Pragmatics: Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues. Bingley: Emerald, 93–113. Estellés, Maria (2011). Gramaticalización y paradigmas: un estudio a partir de los denominados marcadores de digresión en español. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Fagard, Benjamin (2010). É vida, olha . . . : Imperatives as discourse markers and grammaticalization paths in Romance. Languages in Contrast 10(2): 245–67. Repr. in Peter Lauwers, Gundrun Vanderbauwhede, and Stijn Verleyen (eds), Pragmatic Markers and Pragmaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 117–39. Faya-Cerqueiro, Fátima María (2009). Please in the nineteenth century: origin and position of a courtesy marker. In Carlos Prado-Alonso et al. (eds), New Trends and Methodologies in Applied English Language Research. Bern: Lang, 25–36.

280

References

Fedriani, Chiara, and Ghezzi, Chiara (2013). Marcatori funzionali deverbali in greco, latino e italiano: sviluppi paralleli e natura della convergenza. In Luca Lorenzetti and Marco Mancini (eds), Le lingue del Mediterraneo antico: culture, mutamenti, contatti. Rome: Carocci, 151–80. Fedriani, Chiara and Ghezzi, Chiara (forthcoming). The pragmaticalization of verbs of movement and exchange in Latin and Italian: paths of development from lexicon to pragmatics. In Ilona Bădescu and Mihaela Popescu (eds), Studia linguistica et philologica in honoren prof. univ. dr. Mihaela Livescu. Craiova: Editura Universitaria 98–122. Fedriani, Chiara, and Molinelli, Piera (2013). Ut ita dicam and cognates: a pragmatic account. Latin Journal of Linguistics 12(1): 71–99. Fedriani, Chiara, Ghezzi, Chiara, and Van Olmen, Daniël (2012). Imperatives of perception verbs as attention-getting devices: a typological study. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Stockholm, August. Figueras, Carolina (2001). Pragmática de la puntuación. Barcelona: Octaedro. Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) (2006). Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fónagy, Ivan (1982). Situation et signification. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Franck, Dorothea (1980). Grammatik und Konversation. Konigstein: Scriptor. Franckel, Jean-Jacques (1989). Étude de quelques marqueurs aspectuels du français. Geneva: Droz. Fraser, Bruce (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–95. Fraser, Bruce (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167–90. Fraser, Bruce (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 189–204. Frédéric, Madeleine (1985). La répétition: étude rhétorique et linguistique. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Fuentes, Catalina (2010): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Garcés Gómez, Pilar (2008). La organización del discurso: marcadores de ordenación y de reformulación. Madrid: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. Garcés Gómez, Pilar (ed.) (2009). La reformulación del discurso en español en comparación con otras lenguas. Madrid: Universidad Carlos. García Hernández, Benjamín (1976). El campo semántico de ver en lengua latina: estudio estructural. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. García Negroni, María Marta (2003). Gradualité et réinterprétation. Paris: l’Harmattan. Garnier, Sylvie, and Sitri, Frédérique (2009). Certes, un marqueur dialogique? Langue française 163: 121–36. Garric, Nathalie (1996). Pour une stratégie discursive publicitaire: les adverbes assertifs en -ment. Langage et société 78: 77–88. Gelderen, Elly van (2011). The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gerecht, Marie-Jeanne (1987). Alors: opérateur temporel, connecteur argumentatif et marqueurs de discours. Cahiers de linguistique française 8: 69–79. Ghesquière, Lobke, Brems, Lieselotte, and Van de Velde, Freek (2012). Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification: typology and operationalization. In Lieselotte Brems, Lobke

References

281

Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde (eds), Intersections of Intersubjectivity. Thematic issue, English Text Construction 5: 128–52. Ghezzi, Chiara (2012). Guarda, secondo me stai sbagliando! Marcatori interazionali da verbi di percezione in italiano contemporaneo. In Elena Pîrvu (ed.), La lingua e la letteratura italiana in Europa: atti del Convegno internazionale di studi di Craiova. Craiova: Editura Universitaria, 143–63. Ghezzi, Chiara, and Molinelli, Piera (2012). Tra grammatica e pragmatica: ciclicità di sviluppi funzionali (Lat. quaeso e It. prego). SILTA: Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 41: 441–57. Ghezzi, Chiara, and Molinelli, Piera (forthcoming). Italian guarda, prego, dai: pragmatic markers and the left and right periphery. In Kate Beeching and Ulrich Detges (eds), Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. Ghia, Elisa (2007). What’s the meaning, again? A look into the pragmatic value of English again. MS, University of Pavia. Giacalone Ramat, Anna, and Mauri, Caterina (2008). From cause to contrast: a study in semantic change. In Elizabeth Verhoeven et al. (eds), Studies on Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 303–21. Giacalone Ramat, Anna, and Mauri, Caterina (2010). Dalla continuità temporale al contrasto: la grammaticalizzazione di tuttavia come connettivo avversativo. In Atti del X Congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia (SILFI), Basel, June—July 2008. Florence: Cesati, 449–70. Givón, Talmy (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Grice, Paul (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66: 377–88. Grice, Paul (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58. Gülich, Elisabeth, and Kotschi, Thomas (1983). Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique. Cahiers de linguistique française 5: 305–51. Gülich, Elisabeth, and Kotschi, Thomas (1995). Discourse production in oral communication: a study based on French. In Uta Quasthoff (ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter, 30–66. Günthner, Susanne (1999). Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 180: 409–46. Günthner, Susanne, and Mutz, Katrin (2004). Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Björn Wiemer (eds), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 77–107. Halliday, Michael A. K., and Hasan, Ruqaia (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (1997). Alors and donc in spoken French: a reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 153–87. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (1998a). The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

282

References

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (1998b). La grammaticalisation de l’interaction, ou pour une approche polysémique de l’adverbe bien. Revue de sémantique et pragmatique 4: 111–38. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (2000). La polysémie de l’adverbe déjà. In Hanne Leth Andersen and Anna Berit Hansen (eds), Le Français parlé: corpus et résultats. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 157–77. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (2003). From aspectuality to discourse marking: the case of French déjà and encore. In Ton van der Wouden, Ad Foolen, and Piet van de Craen (eds), Particles. Thematic issue, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16: 23–51. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (2008). Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. A Study With Special Reference to the French Phasal Adverbs. Oxford/Bingley: Elsevier/Emerald. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (2012). On the evolution of temporal n-words in Medieval French. Language Sciences 34: 76–91. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (2014). The grammaticalization of negative indefinites. The case of the temporal/aspectual n-words plus and mais in Medieval French. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Jacqueline Visconti (eds), The Diachrony of Negation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 187–214. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, and Rossari, Corinne (2005). The evolution of pragmatic markers. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Corinne Rossari (eds), The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers. Thematic issue, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6: 177–87. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, and Strudsholm, Erling (2008). The semantics of particles: advantages of a contrastive and panchronic approach. A study of the polysemy of French déjà and Italian già. Linguistics 46: 471–505. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, and Visconti, Jacqueline (eds) (2009). Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald. Haspelmath, Martin (2001). The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath et al. (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1492–1510. Heine, Bernd (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83–101. Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania (2005). Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania (2010). Contact and grammaticalization. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, 86–105. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Held, Gundrun (2005). Politeness in Italy: the art of self-representation in requests. In Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart (eds), Politeness in Europe. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, 292–305. Herrero, José Luis (2006). ¿Cómo surgen los conectores: los reformuladores del discurso id est, esto es, es decir? Revista de lexicografía 13: 45–54. Holmer, Gustav (1970). Voir percevoir par l’ouïe. Studia Neophilologica 42: 90–104.

References

283

Hopper, Paul (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 17–35. Hopper, Paul, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Houaiss, Antonio (ed.) (2002): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Hybertie, Charlotte (1996). La conséquence en français. Paris: Ophrys. Hyland, Ken (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum. Iliescu, Maria (2006). Traits lexicaux généraux dans le vocabulaire latino-roman. In Carmen Arías Arbellan (ed.), Latin vulgaire–Latin tardif VII. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla, 45–55. Iliescu, Maria (2008a). Pentru o categorie de mărci discursive de appel. In Omagiu VintilăRădulescu, SCL 59: 389–99. Iliescu, Maria (2008b). Marqueurs discursifs d’appel. In Gabriele Blaikner-Hohenwart et al. (eds), Ladinometria: Festschrift für Hans Goebl zum 65. Geburtstag. Salzburg: Universität Salzburg, Fachbereich Romanistik, 141–58. Iliescu, Maria (2009). Notes sur deux verbes visuels perceptuels roumain: a se uita et a privi ‘regarder’. In Sanda Reinheimer Rîpeanu (ed.), Studia Linguistica in honorem Mariae Manoliu. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 146–52. Iliescu, Maria (2011). Les marqueurs d’appel en français et en roumain (et en allemand et en anglais). In Eva Lavric, Wolfgang Pöckl, and Florian Schallhart (eds), Comparatio delectat, vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 115–35. Ingham, Richard (2010). La syntaxe de ja antéposé au XIIème siècle: l’apport du corpus CORPTEF. Paper presented at Diachro V, Lyon, October. Jayez, Jacques (1988). Alors: description et paramètres. Cahiers de linguistique française 9: 133–75. Jespersen, Otto (1917). Negation in English and other languages. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 1(5). Copenhagen: Det kgl danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Johnstone, Barbara (1991). Repetition in Arabic Discourse: Paradigms, Syntagms and the Ecology of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Johnstone, Barbara (ed.) (1994). Repetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Jucker, Andreas H. (1995). Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Jucker, Andreas H., and Ziv, Yael (eds) (1998). Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kabatek, Johannes (ed.) (2008). Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: nuevas perspectivas desde las tradiciones discursivas. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania (2011). On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 848–93. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (1986). L’implicite. Paris: Colin. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (1990–94). Les interactions verbales (3 vols). Paris: Colin. Khachaturyan, Elizaveta (ed.) (2011a). Discourse Markers in Romance Languages. Thematic issue, Oslo Studies in Language 3.

284

References

Khachaturyan, Elizaveta (2011b). Introduction. In Elizaveta Khachaturyan (ed.), Discourse Markers in Romance Languages. Thematic issue, Oslo Studies in Language 3: 1–5. Khachaturyan, Elizaveta (2011c). Una classificazione dei segnali discorsivi in italiano. In Elizaveta Khachaturyan (ed.), Discourse Markers in Romance languages. Thematic issue, Oslo Studies in Language 3: 95–116. Klein, Wolfgang (1992). The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525–52. Klein, Wolfgang (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge. Kleinknecht, Friederike (2008). Der Imperativ im gesprochenen Italienisch. Santa Cruz, Calif.: GRIN. Knecht, Pierre (1993). William Pierrehumbert, pionnier exemplaire de la lexicographie du français régional. In Gerold Hilty (ed.), Actes du XXe Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, vol. 4. Tübingen: Francke, 175–88. Koike, Dale A. (1996). Functions of the adverbial ya in Spanish narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 267–79. König, Ekkehard (1988). Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 145–66. König, Ekkehard (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. König, Ekkehard (1997). Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 136: 57–75. Kotschi, Thomas (2001). Formulierungspraxis als Mittel der Gesprächsaufrechterhaltung. In Klaus Brinker et al. (eds), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1340–48. Kroon, Caroline (1995). Discourse Particles in Latin: a Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam: Gieben. Kroon, Caroline, and Risselada, Rodie (2002). Phasality, polarity, focality: a feature analysis of the Latin particle iam. In Ton van der Wouden, Ad Foolen, and Piet van de Craen (eds), Particles. Thematic issue, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16: 65–78. Lakoff, Robin (1971). Ifs, ands and buts about conjunction. In Charles Fillmore and Terence Langendoen (eds), Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 114–49. Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lamiroy, Béatrice, and Swiggers, Pierre (1991). The status of imperatives as discourse signals. In Suzanne Fleischman and Linda R. Waugh (eds), Discourse Pragmatics and the Verb. London: Routedge, 120–46. Lauwers, Peter, Vanderbauwhede, Gudrun, and Verleyen, Stijn (eds) (2010). Pragmatic Markers and Pragmaticalization: Lessons from False Friends. Thematic issue, Languages in Contrast 10(2). Lazard, Gilbert (1999). Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3: 91–109. Le Draoulec, Anne, and Bras, Myriam (2007). Alors as a possible temporal connective in discourse. Cahiers Chronos 17: 81–94. Lehmann, Christian (1985). Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e stile 20: 303–18.

References

285

Lehmann, Christian (1995). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Lehmann, Christian (2002). Thoughts on Grammaticalization, vol. 2. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft. Lehmann, Christian (2004). Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanische Linguistik 32: 152–87. Lenz, Rodolfo (1920). La oración y sus partes: estudios de gramática general y castellana. Madrid: Revista de filología española. Levinson, Stephen (2000). Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lewis, David (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–59. Lindström, Jan, and Wide, Camilla (2005). Tracing the origin of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6: 211–36. López Serena, Araceli (2007). Oralidad y escrituralidad en la recreación literaria del español coloquial. Madrid: Gredos. Lorenzo, Emilio (1997). O sea. ABC [magazine], 7 Jan. Macário Lopes, Ana Cristina, and Amaral, Patrícia (2006). From time to discourse monitoring: agora and então in European Portuguese. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 20: 3–18. Machado, José Pedro (1967): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Maiden, Martin, and Mair, Parry (1997). The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge. Manili, Paola (1986). Sintassi di connettivi di origine verbale. In Klaus Lichem, Edith Mara, and Susanne Knaller (eds), Parallela 2: Aspetti della sintassi dell’italiano contemporaneo. Tübingen: Narr, 165–76. Marazzini, Claudio (1991). Il Piemonte e la Valle d’Aosta. Turin: UTET. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane (2006). Grammaticalisation et changement linguistique. Brussels: De Boeck. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane (2008). Le principe de surprise annoncée. Discours 1 (2007). http:// discours.revues.org//index68.html Martin, Robert, and Wilmet, Marc (1980). Syntaxe du moyen français. Bordeaux: Sobodi. Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia, and Portolés Lázaro, José (1999). Los marcadores del discurso. In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 4051–213. Mauri, Caterina, and Sansò, Andrea (2011). How directive constructions emerge: grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3489–521. Meillet, Antoine (1912). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Bologna: Zanichelli. Mellet, Sylvie (2003). Imparfaits en contexte: les conditions de la causalité inférée. Langue française 138: 86–96. Mihatsch, Wiltrud (2009). The approximators French comme, Italian come, Portuguese como Spanish como from a grammaticalization perspective. In Corinne Rossari, Claudia Ricci, and Adriana Spiridon (eds), Grammaticalization and Pragmatics: Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues. Bingley/Leiden: Emerald/Brill, 65–92. Moine, André (1993). Le sémantisme de alors: pour un modèle des démarcateurs du discours en français. In Gerold Hilty (ed.), Actes du XXe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, vol. 2. Tübingen: Francke, 39–51. Molina, Jesús F. Vázquez (2009). Las traducciones de un conector discursivo: alors en las versiones españolas de En attendant Godot, Thélème. Revista complutense de estudios franceses 24: 201–15.

286

References

Molinelli, Piera (2008). Tra oralità e scrittura: rogo nelle lettere private in latino. In Romano Lazzeroni et al. (eds), Diachronica et synchronica: studi in onore di Anna Giacalone Ramat. Pisa: ETS, 365–78. Molinelli, Piera (2010). From verbs to interactional discourse markers: the pragmaticalization of Latin rogo, quaeso. In Gualtiero Calboli and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), Papers on Grammar XI. Rome: Herder, 181–92. Molinelli, Piera (submitted). Verb-based functional markers in Latin: morphosyntax, semantics and pragmatics at a crossroad. MS available at: www.mediling.eu. Molnier, Christian, and Levrier, Françoise (1999). Grammaire des adverbes (description des adverbes en -ment). Geneva: Droz. Morel, Marie-Annick (1980). Étude sur les moyens grammaticaux et lexicaux propres à exprimer une concession en français contemporain. Thèse d’État, University of Paris 3. Morel, Mary-Annick (1996). La concession en français. Paris: Ophrys. Murillo Ornat, Silvia (2007). A contribution to the pragmalinguistic contrastive study of explicatory reformulative discourse markers in contemporary journalistic written English and Spanish. Dissertation, University of Zaragoza. Narrog, Heiko (2012). Beyond intersubjectification: textual uses of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech-act orientation. In Lieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde (eds), Intersections of Intersubjectivity. Thematic issue, English Text Construction 5: 29–52. Narrog, Heiko, and Heine, Bernd (2011). Introduction. In Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–16. Nocentini, Alberto (2010): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Norde, Muriel (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norrick, Neal R. (1987). Functions of repetition in conversation. Text 7: 245–64. Norrick, Neal R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 866–91. Ocampo, Francisco (2006). Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: the evolution of claro from adjective to discourse particle in spoken Spanish. In Nuria Sagarra and Almeida J. Toribio (eds), Selected proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 308–19. Oppermann Marseaux, Evelyne (2008). De l’injonction à l’interjection: la naissance des marqueurs discursifs tien(s) et tenez en français médiéval (XIIe–XVe siècles). L’information grammaticale 118: 11–15. Păunescu, Marina (2002). Alors: marqueur de problématisation discursive. La Revue Arches 4: http://www.arches.ro/revue/no04/no4art10.htm Payne, John (1985). Negation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197–242. Penello, Nicoletta, Benincà, Paola, Vanelli, Laura, and Maschi, Roberta (2010). Morfologia flessiva. In Giampaolo Salvi and Lorenzo Renzi (eds), Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Bologna: il Mulino, 1389–451. Pérez-Salazar Resano, Carmela (2006). Datos para la historia de algunos marcadores de reformulación. In José Jesús Bustos Tovar and José Luis Girón Alconchel (eds), Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de historia de la lengua española. Madrid: Arco libros, 2839–54.

References

287

Poggi, Isabella (2009). The language of interjections. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5398: 170–86. Pons Bordería, Salvador (1998). Conexión y conectores: estudio de su relación en el registro informal de la lengua. Valencia: Departamento de Filología Española, Universitat de València. Pons Bordería, Salvador (2006). From pragmatics to semantics: esto es in formulaic expressions. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 38: 180–206. Pons Bordería, Salvador (2008). Grammaticalización por tradiciones discursivas: el caso de esto es. In Johannes Kabatek (ed.), Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: nuevas perspectivas desde las tradiciones discursivas. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 249–74. Pons Bordería, Salvador (ed.) (2014). Models of Discourse Segmentation. Explorations across Romance languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Prévost, Sophie, Heiden, Serge, and Guillot, Céline (2000): see ‘BFM CD-ROM under ‘Primary sources’. Puglielli, Annarita, and Frascarelli, Mara (2011). Linguistic Analysis: From Data to Theory. Berlin: de Gruyter. Real Academia Española (RAE) (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Real Academia Española (RAE) (2010). Ortografía de la lengua española. Madrid: EspasaCalpe. Riegel, Martin, Pellat, Jean-Christophe, and Rioul, René (1994). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Risselada, Rodie (1993). Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: Gieben. Rodríguez Somolinos, Amalia (1995). Certes, voire: l’évolution sémantique de deux marqueurs assertifs de l’ancien français. Linx 32: 51–76. Rosén, Hannah (2009). Coherence, sentence modification and sentence-part modification: the contribution of particles. In Pierluigi Cuzzolin and Philip Baldi (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 317–441. Rossari, Corinne (1994). Les opérations de reformulation. Berne: Lang. Rossari, Corinne (2006). La preuve et regarde. In Martina Drescher and Barbara Frank-Job (eds), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes: approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 107–19. Rossari, Corinne (ed.) (2007). Les moyens détournés d’assurer son dire. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne. Rossari, Corinne (2008). Le fonctionnement dialogique de quelques connecteurs argumentatifs. In Merete Birkelund, Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen, and Coco Norén (eds), L’énonciation dans tous ses états: mélanges offerts à Henning Nølke à l’occasion de ses soixante ans. Bern: Lang, 361–76. Rossari, Corinne, Ricci, Claudia, and Spiridon, Adriana (eds) (2009). Grammaticalization and Pragmatics: Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues. Bingley/Leiden: Emerald/Brill. Roulet, Eddy (1981). Échanges, interventions et actes de langage dans la structure de la conversation. Études de linguistique appliquée 44: 7–39.

288

References

Roulet, Eddy (1987). Complétude interactive et connecteurs reformulatifs. Cahiers de linguistique française 8: 111–40. Roulet, Eddy, Fillettaz, Laurent, and Grobet, Anne (2001). Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours. Berne: Lang. Santos, Luis (2003): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schwenter, Scott (1996). Some reflections on o sea: a discourse marker in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 855–74. Searle, John R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23. Shyldkrot, Hava Bat-Zeev (1989). Les verbes de perceptions: étude sémantique. In Dieter Kremer (ed.), Actes du XVIII Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 282–94. Smith, Jane S. (2006). From adverb to discourse marker and beyond: the status of là in FrancoAmerican English. In Randall S. Gess and Deborah L. Arteaga (eds), Historical Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 375–87. Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Squartini, Mario (2011). Between modal particles and discourse markers: north-western Italian già ‘already’. Paper presented at 12th International Pragmatics Conference, Manchester. Squartini, Mario (2013). From TAM to discourse: the role of information status in northwestern Italian già ‘already’. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie, and Paola Pietrandrea (eds), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and description. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 163–190. Tabor, Whitney, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1998). Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paul J. Hopper (eds), The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 227–70. Tannen, Deborah (1987). Repetition in conversation as spontaneous formulaicity. Text 7: 215–43. Tannen, Deborah (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, John (1989). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Telmon, Tullio (2001). Piemonte e Valle d’Aosta. Rome: Laterza. Thompson, Sandra A., and Mulac, Anthony (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 313–27. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1986). From polysemy to internal semantic reconstruction. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 539–50. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster (eds), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 406–16. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55.

References

289

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1995a). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 31–54. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1995b). The role of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August. http://www.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1999). The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: a study in subjectification. In Andreas Blank and Peter Koch (eds), Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 177–96. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2003a). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124–39. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2003b). Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 624–47. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2010a). Grammaticalization. In Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 97–126. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2010b). Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In Robert A. Cloutier, Anne Marie Hamilton-Brehm, and William Kretzschmar (eds), Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 11–27. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2010c). Grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi and Vit Bubenik (eds), Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics. London: Continuum, 269–83. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2011). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Logrono, September. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2012). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. Text Construction 5: 7–28. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Dasher, Richard B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and König, Ekkehard (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 189–218. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Trousdale, Graeme (2010). Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tuţescu, Mariana (2003). L’argumentation: introduction à l’étude du discours. Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din București. Vaan, Michiel de (2008): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Välikangas, Olli (1982). La notion de déjà et les mots qui servent à la rendre dans quelques langues européennes. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 83: 371–404. Välikangas, Olli (1985a). La naissance de l’adverbe déjà. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 86: 78–88. Välikangas, Olli (1985b). Paradigmes logiques et contacts de langues: à propos de déjà, encore et schon, noch. In Dieter Kremer (ed.), Actes du XVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, vol. 7. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 17–26. Välikangas, Olli (2000). Jà jà, jà déjà et già già en français et en italien au XVIe siècle, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 101: 365–74.

290

References

Välikangas, Olli (2004). Wie heißt er schon? Comment s’appelle-t-il déjà? Zur Problematik der Erinnerungsfragen. In Irma Hyvärinen, Petri Kallio, and Jarmo Korhonen (eds), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen: Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70 Geburtstag. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 423–37. Verschueren, Jef (1980). On Speech Act Verbs. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Vaan, Michiel de (2008): see under ‘Dictionaries’. Verschueren, Jef (1980). On Speech Act Verbs. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Waltereit, Richard (2001). Modal particles and their functional equivalents: a speech-act theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1391–417. Waltereit, Richard (2002). Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse particles: a study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40: 987–1010. Waltereit, Richard (2006a). The rise of discourse particles in Italian: a specific type of language change. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 61–76. Waltereit, Richard (2006b). Abtönung: zur Pragmatik und historischen Semantik von Modalpartikeln und ihren funktionalen Äquivalenten in romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Waltereit, Richard, and Detges, Ulrich (2007). Different functions, different histories: modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–80. Weinreich, Uriel (2011[1951]). Languages in Contact: French, German and Romansh in Twentieth Century Switzerland. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wilkins, David P. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 119–58. Willems, Dominique (1983). Regard voir : les verbes de perception visuelles. In Eugeen Roegiest and Liliane Tasmowski (eds), Verbe et phrase dans les langues romanes, 147–58. Geneva : Droz. Wilmet, Marc (1970). Le système de l’indicatif en moyen français. Geneva: Droz. Zafiu, Rodica (1989). Câteva observaţii asupra conectorilor pragmatici din limba română. SCL: Studii și cercetări lingvistice 40(3): 315–19.

Author index Aijmer, Karin 2n, 23n Aijmer, Karin and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 12n, 15n, 169 Akimoto, Minoji 62n, 81n Ameka, Felix 14, 15, 15n Anscombre, Jean-Claude 239 Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Ducrot, Oswald 237, 243 Apothéloz, Denis and Nowakowska, Małgorzata 194, 201 Ariel, Mira 23 Auwera, Johan van der 141, 174, 175 Avram, Mioara 88 Battaglia, Salvatore 67n Bazzanella, Carla 13n, 64n, 198, 207n, 224n, 226n, 232, 263, 264n Bazzanella, Carla and Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita 13n, 25, 222n, 226, 227n Bazzanella, Carla, Bosco, Cristina, Calaresu, Emilia, Garcea, Alessandro, Guil, Pura, and Radulescu, Anda (2005) 25, 170, 171, 179, 191, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 224, 224n Bazzanella, Carla, Bosco, Cristina, Garcea, Alessandro, Gili Fivela, Barbara, Miecznikowski, Johanna, and Tini Brunozzi, Francesca 25, 222n Bechara, Evanildo 212 Beeching, Kate and Detges, Ulrich 19n, 25, 69n, 158, 160, 264n, 265n, 270 Beijering, Karin and Norde, Muriel 23n Benveniste, Émile 265 Bernini, Giuliano 198n Berruto, Gaetano 182, 185n Blakemore, Diane 109 Blanche-Benveniste, Claire 111 Blumenthal, Peter 31n, 32n, 36, 38

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, and Kasper, Gabriele 168 Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita and Gómez-Jordana Ferary, Sonia 3n Bouacha, Abdelmadjid Ali 222n, 235 Bracops, Martine 47, 55 Brinton, Laurel 2n, 62n, 264n Brinton, Laurel and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 21, 211n, 219n Briz Gómez, Antonio 109, 110, 128 Briz Gómez, Antonio and Grupo Val.Es. Co. 110, 111, 112n Briz Gómez, Antonio and Pons Bordería, Salvador 111 Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen 64, 159 Buchi, Éva 170, 171, 179, 191, 192, 193, 195 Camus Bergareche, Brunom 130 Carel, Marion 241, 244 Carlier, Anne and De Mulder, Walter 19 Carlier, Anne, Lamiroy, Béatrice, and De Mulder, Walter 163 Casado Velarde, Manuel 124 Casteleiro, João Malaca 212 Cerruti, Massimo 171, 191, 200, 201, 204 Chafe, Wallace 209 Choi, Soonja 202 Ciorănescu, Alexandru 30n Claridge, Claudia and Arnovick, Leslie 22 Coculescu, Steluţa 222n, 223, 227, 228, 230n Colella, Gianluca 64 Company Company, Concepción 25, 25n, 68n, 131, 267 Coniglio, Marco 19n, 170, 203n Cornillie, Bert 267 Costinescu, Mariana 223n

292

Author index

Cresti, Emanuela and Moneglia, Massimo 62n Cristea, Teodora 32, 33 Cuenca, Maria Josep 109, 110 Cuenca, Maria Josep and Bach, Carme 110 Cuenca, Maria Josep and Marín, Maria Josep 25 Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja 15 Cunha, Celso and Cintra, Lindley 212 Cuzzolin, Pierluigi and Molinelli, Piera 269n Dascălu-Jinga, Laurenţia 29, 88 Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert 186 De Smet, Hendrik and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe 17, 17n Degand, Liesbeth and Fagard, Benjamin 25, 222n Degand, Lisbeth and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie 23n Del Saz Rubio, María 109 DeLancey, Scott 202, 202n Delbecque, Nicole and Maldonado, Ricardo 198 Detges, Ulrich and Waltereit, Richard 19n, 158, 162, 200, 201, 205n Diessel, Holger 18n Diewald, Gabriele 21, 22, 23, 63, 85n, 183, 184, 190, 200, 205n Diewald, Gabriele, Kresić, Marijana, and Smirnova, Elena 201 Dörper, Sven 153 Dostie, Gaétane 3n, 10, 23, 23n, 25, 25n, 39, 84, 237, 264n, 267 Drescher, Martina and Frank-Job, Barbara 3n, 23n, 26n Ducrot, Oswald 123, 124, 128, 227, 238 Enghels, Renata 30n Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt 10, 22n, 23n Ernout, Alfred and Meillet, Antoine 86, 153 Escobar, Anna María 67n Estellés, Maria 124, 219n

Fagard, Benjamin 3n, 25, 25n, 264n Faya-Cerqueiro, Fátima María 62n Fedriani, Chiara, Ghezzi, Chiara 16, 25n, 268 Fedriani, Chiara, Ghezzi, Chiara, and Van Olmen, Daniël 11n, 264n Fedriani, Chiara and Molinelli, Piera 265n Figueras, Carolina 127 Fischer, Kerstin 2n, 10 Fónagy, Ivan 193 Franck, Dorothea 169, 196 Franckel, Jean-Jacques 222n Fraser, Bruce 2n, 12, 109, 194n Frédéric, Madeleine 166 Fuentes, Catalina 110 Garnier, Sylvie and Sitri, Frédérique 239, 240 Garcés Gómez, Pilar 109, 110, 126 García Hernández, Benjamín 32 García Negroni, María Marta 245 Garric, Nathalie 41 Gelderen, Elly van 140 Gerecht, Marie-Jeanne 222, 223, 225, 228, 230n Ghesquière, Lobke, Brems, Lieselotte, and Van de Velde, Freek 17, 18n Ghezzi, Chiara 16, 25, 40 Ghezzi, Chiara and Molinelli, Piera 24n, 97, 264n, 265n Ghia, Elisa 168 Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Mauri, Caterina 21, 184, 185 Givón, Talmy 153 Grice, Paul 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55, 59 Gülich, Elisabeth and Kotschi, Thomas 109 Günthner, Susanne 183 Günthner, Susanne and Mutz, Katrin 183, 186 Halliday, Michael A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaia 17, 17n Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard 3n, 10, 16, 21, 23n, 25, 26n, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 149, 151, 152n, 153, 154, 155n, 157, 162, 164, 165, 171, 191,

Author index 192, 193, 194, 194n, 195, 196, 197, 201, 203, 206, 207, 208, 222n, 224, 226, 227, 235 Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Rossari, Corinne 169 Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Strudsholm, Erling 25, 152, 170, 171, 179, 191, 193, 194n, 198, 198n, 205, 206n, 207 Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Visconti, Jacqueline 3, 165 Haspelmath, Martin 175 Heine Bernd 23, 69n, 85n, 154, 190, 267n Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike 16, 20n Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 170, 178 Held, Gundrun 64, 65 Herrero, José Luis 124 Holmer, Gustav 32n Hopper, Paul 84, 125, 184 Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 20n, 219 Houaiss, Antonio 212 Hybertie, Charlotte 222n, 225 Hyland, Ken 19 Iliescu, Maria 25, 30, 31, 34 Ingham, Richard 151 Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana 29n Jayez, Jacques 222n Jespersen, Otto 84n, 140, 164, 269 Johnstone, Barbara 166 Jucker, Andreas H. 2n Jucker, Andreas H., and Ziv, Yael 2n Kabatek, Johannes 128 Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania 23n, 24, 24n, 183, 184, 185, 188, 266 Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine 47, 48n Khachaturyan, Elizaveta 3n, 41, 42 Klein, Wolfgang 142, 168, 196 Kleinknecht, Friederike 25 Knecht, Pierre 178 Koike, Dale A. 198, 199 König, Ekkehard 149n, 160, 202

293

Kotschi, Thomas 109 Kroon, Caroline 3n Kroon, Caroline and Risselada, Rodie 139, 140, 141, 141n, 144, 148, 153, 191, 192 Lakoff, Robin 237 Lambrecht, Knud 209 Lamiroy, Béatrice and Swiggers, Pierre 4, 26n Lauwers, Peter, Vanderbauwhede, Gudrun, and Verleyen, Stijn 23n Lazard, Gilbert 202n Le Draoulec, Anne and Bras, Myriam 222n Lehmann, Christian 20n, 21, 84, 170, 182, 183, 184, 186 Lenz, Rodolfo 109 Levinson, Stephen 214, 220 Lewis, David 217n Lindström, Jan and Wide, Camilla 167 López Serena, Araceli 128 Lorenzo, Emilio 129, 130, 134 Macário Lopes, Ana Cristina, and Amaral, Patrícia 25 Machado, José Pedro 213 Maiden, Martin and Parry, Mair 191n Manili, Paola 25 Marazzini, Claudio 181 Marchello-Nizia, Christiane 163, 237, 237n, 238 Martin, Robert and Wilmet, Marc 155 Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia, and Portolés Lázaro, José 110, 198, 264n Mauri, Caterina and Sansò, Andrea 190 Meillet, Antoine 20 Mellet, Sylvie 228n Mihatsch, Wiltrud 170 Moine, André 222n Molina, Jesús F. Vázquez 222n Molinelli, Piera 21, 23n, 66, 69n, 85, 264n Molnier, Christian and Levrier, Françoise 41 Morel, Marie-Annick 237, 239 Murillo Ornat, Silvia 109, 110 Narrog, Heiko 18 Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd 23

294

Author index

Nocentini, Alberto 67n Norde, Muriel 23n, 24 Norrick, Neal R. 15, 16, 166

Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre 3, 11n, 12, 242 Squartini, Mario 171, 191, 192, 201, 204, 205n

Ocampo, Francisco 23n, 183 Oppermann Marseaux, Evelyne 25n

Tabor, Whitney and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 116, 131, 184, 211n, 219n Tannen, Deborah 166 Taylor, John 168 Telmon, Tullio 181 Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony 85, 85n Tiktin, Hariton 88 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2n, 10, 16, 20n, 21, 22, 25, 114, 124, 136, 158, 160, 183, 184, 185, 186, 211n, 219n, 224, 237 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B. 16, 24, 64n, 68n, 81n, 130, 158, 184, 186, 190, 209, 211n, 219n, 237, 238 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and König, Ekkehard 17 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme 190 Tuţescu, Mariana 48n

Păunescu, Marina 222n Payne, John 162 Penello, Nicoletta, Benincà, Paola, Vanelli, Laura, and Maschi, Roberta 67n Pérez-Salazar Resano, Carmela 124 Poggi, Isabella 179 Pons Bordería, Salvador 25, 25n, 111, 124, 130, 135 Prévost, Sophie, Heiden, Serge, and Guillot, Céline 145 Puglielli, Annarita and Frascarelli, Mara 209 Riegel, Martin, Pellat, Jean-Christophe, and Rioul, René 155 Risselada, Rodie 3n, 64, 64n, 66n, 67n Rodríguez Somolinos, Amalia 239, 258 Rosén, Hannah 140, 141n, 153n, 180, 192 Rossari, Corinne 25n, 35, 109, 128, 217n, 240, 249, 250 Rossari, Corinne, Ricci, Claudia, and Spiridon, Adriana 10 Roulet, Eddy 109, 111, 128 Roulet, Eddy, Fillettaz, Laurent, and Grobet, Anne 240 Santos, Luis 110 Schiffrin, Deborah 2, 10, 12n, 264n Schwenter, Scott 110 Searle, John R. 64 Shyldkrot, Hava Bat-Zeev 30, 30n, 40 Smirnova, Elena 201 Smith, Jane S. 15

Vaan, Michiel de 66n Välikangas, Olli 170, 178, 180, 186n, 191, 193, 196, 199 Verschueren, Jef 64 Waltereit, Richard 3n, 21, 23n, 25, 25n, 168, 196, 201, 202 Waltereit, Richard and Detges, Ulrich 264n Weinreich, Uriel 181 Wilkins, David P. 15, 15n Willems, Dominique 31 Wilmet, Marc 155 Zafiu, Rodica 222n

Subject index aliás 7–8, 211–21 adverb of manner 213–15, 217, 218–19, 220, 221 cluster of meanings 220–1 comment marker 212–13, 217, 218–19, 220, 221 diachronic evolution 213–18 discourse connective 215–17, 218–19, 221 functions 212–13 metalinguistic marker 214 reformulation marker 212–13, 215, 218–19, 221 alors 8, 222–36 causal marker 228–30 discourse marker 227, 230–6 functions 223–4, 230–6 polyfunctionality 224, 235 POP marker 232 sentence connective 224–30 ajunge (a) 41, 45 arrêtez (de) 41, 44, 55 ascoltare 30, 31, 37, 38–9 asculta (a) 30, 31, 36, 38–9 assez 41, 42–3, 49, 50–1, 56–8 attention getters 5, 10, 11, 15, 18, 24–5, 29–40 ascolta 39 ascultă 35, 39 auditory 36, 37, 38, 39 auzi 37, 38 écoute 35, 38, 39 guarda 24–5, 35, 37, 39 mă rog 98–9 non agentive 39 regarde 35 senti 35, 37, 38, 39 uite 34, 35 vedi 18, 35n visual 39

atunci 8, 222–6 causal marker 228–30 discourse marker 227, 230–6 etymology 223 functions 223–4, 230–6 POP marker 232 sentence connective 224–9, 30 auzi (a) 30, 31, 36–8 bien 162–3 bridging context 23 ça suffit (comme ça) 41, 43 call markers see attention getters cere (a) 86 cerşi (a) 86 certes 238–9, 240, 242, 248–52, 253–8, 259 chiedo 61, 66–7, 77–83 cioè 13 concession 237 poliphony 238–9, 241–3 concessive markers 8, 237–60 certes 238–9, 240, 242, 248–52, 253–8, 259 d’accord 240, 242, 248, 252–3, 259 diachronic evolution 253–8 dialogic use 240–1, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253–8 effectivement 239, 240, 242, 248–52, 259 en effet 239, 240, 242, 248–52, 259 mais 243–7, 252, 254–8 monologic use 240–1, 252, 253–8 soit 239, 240, 242, 248, 252–3, 253–8, 259 conversational maxims 41, 46–8, 53–5, 57 cooperative principle 46–7, 49–55, 59 cooptation 23–4 courtesy markers 6, 10, 11, 16, 24, 61–85 cyclic nature see pragmatic cycle je vous en prie 63, 68 mă rog 6, 63, 68, 87–8, 90–3

296

Subject index

courtesy markers (cont.) please 62n politeness see politeness por favor 63, 68 pragmatic development 68 pray 62n, 81n prego 6, 61, 62, 64, 66–7, 68, 77–83, 263–4 quaeso 6, 61, 62, 64, 66, 69–76 s’il vous plaît 63, 68 se faz favor, faça favor 63 d’accord 240, 242, 248, 252–3, 259 déjà 7, 15, 139, 146, 147, 150, 162, 190–210 common knowledge 195 diachronic evolution 206–9 discourse marker 192–3, 197 erinnerungsfragepartikeln 167, 170, 171, 177–82, 187–8, 193, 194–5, 196, 198–203, 207–8 focus particle 192–3 functions 142–4, 163–4, 192–7 illocutionary modifier 193–4, 196, 200, 203–9 information state 195–6, 197, 201–2, 204–6 modal particle 200–1, 205 phasal 193, 195, 196 pragmatic marker 192–3, 196, 197, 201 pragmaticalization 177–82, 187–8, 190–210 propositional level 193 right periphery 185 temporal-aspectual value 192 destul 41, 44, 50, 56–8 dialogical unit see dialogue dialogue 112, 113 dialogic use 128, 133, 135, 136, 158, 159, 160, 239, 240–1, 242, 248 250, 251, 266, 270 disagreement markers 6, 16, 41–60, 263 ajunge (a) 41, 45 arrêtez (de) 41, 44, 55 assez 41, 42–3, 49, 50–1, 56–8 ça suffit (comme ça) 41, 43 cooperative principle see cooperative principle

destul 41, 44, 50, 56–8 directives 55–6 gata 41, 44–5 încetează 41, 45 lasă (a) 41, 45, 50, 51–2 nonverbal behaviour 48, 55–6 taci 41, 45 tais-toi 41, 43–4, 49 verbal behaviour 48, 49–52, 55 zut 41, 56 discourse grammar 209, 266 discourse levels see situational dimensions discourse markers see functional markers discourse planes see situational dimensions discourse positions 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 Theory 111–16, 134n, 135–6 discourse units 111–15, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 écouter 30, 31, 38–9, 40 effectivement 239, 240, 242, 248–52, 259 en effet 239, 240, 242, 248–52, 259 entendre 30, 31, 36–8 epistemic parentheticals 85 erinnerungsfragepartikeln 166–89 cumulative strategy 172, 175, 176–7, 187 déjà 167, 170, 171, 177–82, 187–8, 193, 194–5, 196, 198–203, 201, 208 già 167–8, 171, 177–82, 187–8, 198–203 iam 179–80 inchoative strategy 172, 175, 176–7, 187 iterative strategy 172–5, 176–7, 178, 187 mixed strategies 176–7 pragmaticalization 182–7, 187–8 source lexemes 172–7 functional markers 1, 2–3, 10, 11–16, 20–4, 24–6 adverbs 7–8, 10, 11, 25, 139–65, 166–89, 190–210, 211–21, 222–36, 237–60, 264, 265 cyclic nature see pragmatic cycle development 20–4 diachrony 3–4, 16–20, 26, 266–9, 269–71

Subject index discourse markers 11–16, 21, 23, 25, 143, 169, 197, 198, 211, 219, 221, 224, 230–6, 237–8, 242, 262, 263, 265, 266, 270 discourse organizational 2, 3, 23, 169, 197, 198, 227, 252, 262 discourse planes see situational dimensions formal correlates 264–5 macrofunctions 13–14, 15, 17, 23, 63, 85, 262, 263 morphosyntactic properties of sources 11, 24–6 multifunctionality see functional markers, polyfunctionality polyfunctionality 3, 12–13, 14, 16, 100, 139, 151–2, 162, 163, 169, 211, 218–19, 221, 223, 224, 235, 236, 242, 252, 263, 270 pragmatic markers 11–16, 21, 23, 25, 55, 56–8, 88, 169, 194, 194n, 197, 242, 262, 263, 270 procedural encoding 3, 12, 264 socio-interactional 2, 3, 23, 63, 85, 100, 169, 197, 209, 252, 253, 262, 270 speaker’s stance 2, 23, 197, 252, 262 synchrony 3, 26, 262–6, 269–71 verbs 5–7, 10, 11, 25, 26, 29–40, 41–60, 61–85, 86–108, 109–36, 256, 262, 264–5 gata 41, 44–5 già 7, 168, 170, 171, 177–82, 187–8, 190–210, 266 diachronic evolution 206–9 discourse marker 198, 204 erinnerungsfragepartikeln 167–8, 171, 177–82, 187–8, 198–203 illocutionary modifier 200, 203–9 information state 202, 204–5, 206, 208 interjectional 198 modal particle 200–1 pragmaticalization 170, 177–82, 187–8, 190–210 right periphery 185 grammaticalization 4, 20–4, 63, 84, 125, 130, 182–5, 190–2, 209, 211, 219, 221, 237, 266, 268 Grice Paul 41, 46–8, 55 guardare 30, 31, 32, 33–6, 40

297

iam 7, 24, 139, 144, 146, 147, 148, 153n, 179–80, 191, 268 functions 140–1, 163–4 illocutionary force 193–4, 252, 253, 266 încetează 41, 45 (inter)subjective, (inter)subjectification 15, 16–20, 158 intersubjective, intersubjectification 17–20, 75, 82n, 83, 84, 85, 91, 100, 158, 160, 169, 209, 256, 267–8, 270 subjective, subjectification 17, 75, 158, 160–1, 169, 226, 237–8, 265, 267–8 interjections 14–15, 16 Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change 237–8 ja 7, 139–65 assertive 157–9, 162–3 bridging contexts 158–9 concessive value 148–9, 160 cycle of pragmaticalization 163–5 disappearance 161–3 discourse particle 147–8 focus particle 147, 155–6, 160–1 functions 146–51, 163–4 negative polarity contexts 149–51, 156–7 negative-polarity item 151 non temporal values 157–61 phasal value 150, 155–6, 162, 164 polyfunctionality 151–61 positive polarity contexts 146–9, 153–6 semantic/pragmatic network 161 temporal quantifier 149 temporal/aspectual value 146–7, 152–3, 153–7, 164 jadis 139, 153, 162 jamais 139, 145, 149, 151, 153, 157, 162 je vous en prie 63, 68 lasă (a) 41, 45, 50, 51–2 left periphery 75, 81–2, 158 mă rog 6, 63, 68, 86–108 attention getter 98–9 circumstantial value 93–4

298

Subject index

mă rog (cont.) courtesy marker see courtesy markers modalising value 94–8 performative see performative verbs s’il vous plaît 63, 68 sociolinguistic values 93 macrofunctions see functional markers mais 243–7, 252, 254–8 modal particles 23, 200–1, 205, 265, 266 monologic 240–1, 242, 248, 252, 253, 258 morphosyntactic properties of sources see functional markers multifunctionality see functional markers negative-polarity contexts 149–51, 156–7 o sea 6–7, 109–36 bridging contexts 119, 120, 121, 122 conclusive meaning 110, 125–6, 131–2 diachronic evolution 116–35 discourse genres 124 discourse positions 131–5, 136 discourse units 131–5, 136 formal reduction 127–8 formulative values 134–5 free construction 116–18 grammaticalization 125, 126, 131 hetero-reformulation 128, 133, 135 modal value 110, 128–30, 134 non paraphrastic meaning 110, 126, 132 paradigmatic pressure 124 poliphony 123–4 reformulative meaning 110, 118–26, 127, 131, 132–3 values in Present-Day Spanish 110–11 writer and reader roles 124–5 performative verbs 63–6, 67, 85, 89–90, 264 please 62n politeness 64–5, 85, 90, 91, 92–3, 100, 168, 197, 208 polyfunctionality see functional markers polyphony 119, 123–4, 238–9, 241–3 polyphonic structures see polyphony por favor 63, 68

positive-polarity contexts 146–9, 153–6 pragmatic cycle 4, 24, 62, 84–5, 140, 163–5, 268–9 pragmatic markers see functional markers pragmaticalization 4, 7, 20–4, 26, 63, 84–5, 88, 190–2, 207, 209, 236, 237, 259, 266, 268, 269 contact-induced 166–89 mă rog 89–99, 99–100 performative verbs see performative verbs polypragmaticalization 7, 170, 193 prego 77–83 quaeso 69–76 pragmatico-semantic change 16–20 mechanics 5, 24, 261 mechanisms 5, 24, 25, 62, 190, 261 pray 62n, 81n prego 6, 61, 62, 64, 66–7, 68, 77–83, 263–4 privi (a) 30, 31, 33–6, 40 quaeso 6, 61, 62, 64, 66, 69–76, 268, 269 reformulation markers 6–7, 15, 109, 110, 116–25, 126, 212–13, 215, 218–19, 221 regarder 30, 31, 33–6 right periphery 75, 81–2, 185, 194, 209–10 rogo 61, 66, 69–76 ruga (a) 86–7 s’il vous plaît 63, 68 schon 168, 170, 181 se faz favor, faça favor 63 sentence grammar 23n sentire 30, 31, 36–8, 40 situational dimensions 12, 13–14, 17–20, 223 action structure 12, 14 communicative activity 12, 14 exchange structure 12, 14 ideational structure 12, 14, 17 identity of speakers 12, 14 information state 12, 14, 197, 201, 202, 226, 249, 250, 251, 259, 265, 266 participant framework 12, 14, 240, 253 social act 12, 14, 17–18 speaker’s stance 2, 12, 14, 17

Subject index soit 239, 240, 242, 248, 252–3, 253–8, 259 subjective, subjectification see (inter) subjective, (inter)subjectification taci 41, 45 tais-toi 41, 43–4, 49 TAM markers 190–210 illocutionary force 193 propositional level 193 thetical grammar 23n uita (a se) 30, 30–1, 33–6, 40 Val.Es.Co. theory of discourse units see discourse units vedea (a) 30, 31, 31–3

vedere 30, 31, 31–3 vedi 18, 35n verbs of perception 29–40, 264 agentive 30, 33–6, 38–9 auditory 29, 30, 36–9 involuntary see non agentive non agentive 30, 31–3, 36–8 visual 29, 30, 31–6, 39–40 voluntary see agentive see also attention getters voici 40 voilà 34, 40 voir 30, 31, 31–3, 36, 40 zut 41, 56

299

Ox f o r d S t u d i e s I n D i a c hr on i c An d H i s to r i c a l L i n g u i s t ic s General editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory editors Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge Published 1 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway 2 Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar 3 Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith 5 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth 6 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale 7 Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto

8 Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent 9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli In preparation Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden The History of Negation in Low German Anne Breitbarth Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti The Historical Dialectology of Arabic: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τος and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Gender from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro Vowel Quantity from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro The Syntax and Semantics of Vedic Particles John J. Lowe Syntactic Change and Stability Joel Wallenberg The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth