Some relevance-theoretic thoughts on the development of shame in a

As discussed in Section 5.1.1, etymological information shows that PM shame originated from a conceptually encoded (lexical) item expressing negative states such as dishonour and humiliation. The loose use of shame as hyperbole helps to explain its connection to the conventional English phrases as well as how its historically pejorative sense over time became relaxed in specific contexts. As a widely used hyperbole, the intended meaning of shame also became more easily associated with the Afrikaans expressions foeitog and siestog, resulting in transference of pragmatic function. In this way, foeitog and siestog are believed to have functionally contributed toward shame’s further amelioration and development as a PM.

Sociolinguistic trends such as those involving hyperbolic use are not uncommon, and if such trends persist, meaningful changes can result. Ritter (2012: 411) explains that the “metafunction” of a hyperbole is to “reorient by disorienting”: “By generating confusion through excess, hyperbole alters and creates meaning.” In this way, evaluative expressions (e.g., unique, hectic, awesome, chaos, hero) that traditionally were reserved specifically for extreme and marginal occasions or contexts are used as hyperbole to draw immediate attention by disturbing the actual state of affairs. Gaining and keeping attention is fundamental for successful communication and is the premise on which the Cognitive and Communicative principles of relevance rest (Wilson, 2016b: 7). That is, attention to a stimulus (communication) is necessary to determine whether or not that stimulus is relevant. Logically, if one is not aware of a stimulus, it cannot be found to be relevant – or anything else for that matter. Furthermore, attempting to communicate with another individual is itself an act of trying to attract attention, and through experience, individuals presume relevance when this occurs. Gaining attention is paramount for successful communication. The interlocutors’ need to gain and keep attention during discourse also explains why actual literal communication is quite rare (e.g., Wilson & Sperber, 2002a; Wilson & Carston, 2006) while metaphorical use, including hyperbole, is common, particularly in spoken communication (Carston & Wearing, 2015: 79). Like other figurative language, when a hyperbole is used the speaker expects the hearer to recognise and

access aspects of its literal meaning and adjust that meaning to fit the context and meet expectations of relevance. Therefore, hyperbole is used to attract attention and constrain interpretation of an utterance; and as relevance theorists (e.g., Sperber & Wilson, 1986b; Wilson & Carston, 2006: 406) have asserted, interpreting a hyperbole is no different from interpreting all utterances: as guided by context and an individual’s expectations of relevance.

Although non-literal communication is common, hyperbolic use of an item is interpreted as a linguistic innovation if its use is unfamiliar to the hearer. According to Relevance theory, linguistic innovations initially trigger ad hoc concepts that are derived following context-sensitive modifications of the item’s original meaning during inferential interpretation. An ad hoc concept is thus the result of pragmatically adjusted linguistic meaning interacting with contextual information to meet the hearer’s expectations of relevance. With frequent and widespread use within a community, a linguistic innovation will become more familiar to those individuals, and over time, this item that once activated ad hoc concepts becomes cognitively remapped or reinterpreted. The item is now more accessible and perhaps in certain contexts (such as those that signify social identity through use of a sociolinguistic trend) not only anticipated but socially identifying. At this point, the item no longer only metarepresents its original sense, but has procedurally broadened for greater pragmatic versatility, thus giving rise to a range of meanings and functions that must be inferred in context, again to fit the hearer’s expectations of relevance. It is proposed that through use as hyperbole and cross-linguistic contact, shame’s traditional, conceptually encoded sense pragmatically broadened in this way, gradually becoming semantically, syntactically and prosodically similar to the two Afrikaans expressions to which it has been linked. These changes led to shame’s development of characteristics associated with PMs and aligning with the functional definition provided in Section 2.1.9.

Key to relevance is the notion, outlined by the conditions for relevance and further described in the relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure (Section 3.2), that processing effort is offset by greater cognitive effects.134 _{This notion may help explain the propagation of shame in a multilingual} environment, first in the form of hyperbole as a sociolinguistic trend and then as a PM following

134 _{From Sperber and Wilson (1995: 125): “Extent condition 1: an assumption is relevant in a context to}

the extent that its contextual effects [i.e., positive cognitive effects –AG] in the context are large. Extent condition 2: an assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that the effort required to process it in this context is small.” From Wilson and Sperber (2004: 611): “Relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure: (a) follow a path of least effort in computing cognitive effects: Test interpretive hypotheses (disambiguations, reference resolutions, implicatures, etc.) in order of accessibility. (b) Stop when your expectations of relevance are satisfied.”

its cross-linguistic associations with the two Afrikaans expressions from which pragmatic functions were adopted. As communicators interacted cross-linguistically, this latter development resulted in broader functions, thus increasing its use. In Section 5.1.2, two functions were attributed to shame, namely affective and hortatory. These functions constitute procedures for the interpretation of the speaker’s thought or intention and show shame is used to express or ease sensitive topics, avoid unintended offence and express a range of emotions. As evidenced in the data, paraphrasing a precise meaning of the procedure that shame represents is quite difficult (see Appendix C, column D). Nevertheless, it is apparent from the data (Appendix C) and personally observed discourse that the use of PM shame causes no interpretation difficulties among SAfE interlocutors. Blakemore (2011) discusses highly procedural items, particularly those with affective qualities, among which shame could be included, in terms of “descriptive ineffability”. Similarly, Carston (2016b: 159, 163) refers to them as being introspectively inaccessible. The reason for this is because the use of PM shame, as it is used in the SAfE context, over time has become more closely linked with synchronised paralinguistic cues such as prosody, gestures and facial expressions (cf. Blakemore, 2011: 3548). Furthermore, through linguistic experience, PM shame is immediately understood to trigger or cancel contextual implicatures. In a multilingual, multicultural environment, if a single item can constrain interpretations of potentially sensitive topics, express contextual implicatures or cancel unintended ones, and easily and quickly communicate what otherwise is difficult and perhaps infelicitous to put into words, it stands to reason this item will be used.

Every communicative event presents some degree of challenge to the interlocutors. Features that make up contexts, such as encyclopaedic knowledge and its accessibility, assumptions and preferences, are ever-changing and all must be navigated. Furthermore, since there are far more concepts than there are words to represent them, communicators are assumed to understand that linguistic items must be flexible by necessity. This flexibility lends itself to individual creativity and innovation to meet the innate human need to communicate and understand. Communicative success is usually more challenged in multicultural environments where intent and clarity may be put under both social and linguistic constraints. In such situations, different language and cultural backgrounds and preferences compete. Here, language is used in ways that would be unnecessary under conditions of greater familiarity. Studies show that multicultural environments are fertile ground for innovative language use (e.g., Andersen, 2001; Stenstrӧm et al., 2002b; Torgersen et al., 2011), leading to the conclusion that the need for human expression and understanding is stronger than the need to follow the grammatical rules of a particular language. Since Relevance theory states that individuals are unlikely to expend effort unless some form of reward in return is

perceived, one must conclude that linguistic innovations occur for the individual or social benefit of being understood.

PM shame exemplifies linguistic change that occurred in a multicultural environment as a result of sociolinguistic behaviour and cross-linguistic influences. Grammatical changes are believed to have led to functional broadening of this item during its development as a PM. These changes illustrate a distinct movement toward proceduralisation. Relevance theory describes all linguistic items as having some procedural encoding, allowing a single item to be used to represent different thoughts in different contexts. The procedural encoding for shame is believed to have allowed it to be used in innovative ways. In a multicultural environment, adjustments of meaning may be complex as well as influenced by a predilection for achieving the greatest effects for the least effort, as defined in the conditions for relevance.