Motivations for language use and change

Grammaticalisation theory and Relevance theory agree that the main motivating factor for language use and language change is the overlapping need for individuals to socially interact and understand their shared environment. That is, the central motivation for language use and changes as described in both frameworks is the need for expressivity and understanding, respectively. Grammaticalisation theory describes expressivity as the root of innovative language use. Hopper and Traugott (2003: 76) state that the pragmatic and associative meaning changes of lexical items, which are common in the early stages of grammaticalisation, are the direct result of expressivity and the need to be informative. Similarly, Relevance theory asserts that the purpose of communication is rooted in the search for optimal relevance (which leads to understanding) and that the by-product of this search is ostensive communication.112 _{Assuming Keller’s maxim, that} expressivity is defined as “[talking] in such a way that you are noticed” (Keller 1994:101, in Croft, 2010: 41), expressivity and ostensive communication are one and the same. Interlocutors’ mutual acknowledgement of the speaker’s drive for expressivity and the hearer’s expectations of relevance are thus seen as the drivers for language use and change; grammaticalisation accordingly occurs as a consequence of the innate human need to find optimal relevance.

Both theories also acknowledge that an individual’s need to inform competes with the need to economise. This notion is discussed from the perspective of each framework, both applying it to describe how it contributes to communication and innovative language use and its interpretation. Hopper and Traugott (2003: 71) discuss the communicators’ dual preference for being informative and efficient. Sperber and Wilson (1995: 125) explain that optimal relevance is found when the effort an individual expends in communication is less than the benefits achieved from communicating. This is similar to a cost-benefit analysis where a commodity has value when the cost of getting it is less than the benefit of having it. In this way, Nicolle (2011: 407) suggests grammaticalisation can be explained as a consequence of the search for optimal relevance.

the process of grammaticalisation can be viewed as being motivated by the principle of relevance, according to which an optimally relevant interpretation is one which achieves adequate cognitive effects for minimal processing effort.

Expressivity may also lead to lexical and pragmatic borrowings (also known as transference) from one language to another. As English steadily grows as the international lingua franca, cross-

112 As described in section 4.2, ostensive communication is the speaker’s deliberate and overt demonstration

linguistic borrowings have been found to be quite common in English and non-English languages (Andersen, 2001, 2014). The etymological history of almost all languages shows cross-linguistic borrowings to some extent. In an environment such as South Africa where so many of its speakers are multi-lingual (to varying degrees), cross-linguistic influences are assumed to be high, and such occurrences of borrowing may be found with greater regularity (e.g., Jeffery & van Rooy, 2004). According to Relevance theory, a speaker makes optimal use of all available communicative systems in the process of appealing to the hearer’s expectations of relevance. Therefore, this study takes as point of departure the hypothesis that cross-linguistic influences contributed toward the development of the three PMs analysed here. Like the propagation of any linguistic innovation, through repetitious and wide-spread imitation, over time such borrowings may eventually become conventionalised and accepted into mainstream language use without awareness of its origin or path of change.

Both theoretical frameworks also remark on the influence of loose use and figurative language as a motivating factor of language change. Relevance theorists acknowledge that all language use is weighted more heavily on the side of non-literal than literal because utterances are representations and thus can only resemble the speaker’s thoughts, not directly mirror them. As Sperber and Wilson (1995: 233) state, a “speaker is presumed to aim at optimal relevance, not at literal truth.” How language is used influences how it is inferentially interpreted, which affects how it is cognitively internalised and later will be used. This notion overlaps with that of Grammaticalisation theorists who describe language change in terms of (inter)subjectification; that is, change that occurs as a result of internalising meaning and function in relation to the speaker’s worldview (subjectification) and linguistic change as a result of the assumptions the speaker attributes to her audience in regards to meaning and function (intersubjectification). Hopper and Traugott (2003: 85) recognise that metaphorical innovation is a motivating factor in grammaticalisation, and these innovations may result in both semantic and pragmatic change. They cite Bybee and Paguliuca (1985: 75 in Hopper & Traugott, 2003: 85) as stating that “[r]ather than subscribe to the idea that grammatical evolution is driven by communicative necessity, we suggest that human language users have a natural propensity for making metaphorical extensions that lead to the increased use of certain items.” Such extensions of figurative language appear to be linked to motivations for expressivity, efficiency and creativity. In relevance-theoretic terminology, this ‘natural propensity’ appears to be the communicators’ mutual aim at optimal relevance.

It is well accepted that communication does not occur in isolation but involves a multitude of interacting contextual factors, often leading to innovative language use – whether metaphorical,

loose or otherwise. It is no great leap to state that communicators have a mutual aim at gaining attention (as without it, communication is not successful) and striking optimal relevance, and as a result of this aim, loose use may lead to language change.