The framework
1.7 Summary and outline of later chapters
In this chapter we have outlined the assumptions and claims of the Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (IITSC). The basic idea is that historically there is a path from coded meanings (Ms) to utterance-token meanings (IINs) to utterance-type, pragmatically polysemous meanings (GIINs) to new se- mantically polysemous (coded) meanings. According to this approach, pragmatic implicatures play a crucial bridging role in semantic change. The system change known as “semantic change” is on this view the result of SP/Ws and AD/Rs negoti- ating meaning. While the dyadic relationship between SP/W and AD/R is a given of discourse, the main tendency in semantic change from a semasiological perspective is toward greater subjectivity or grounding in SP/W attitude and perspective. This is because SP/Ws are the prime initiators of change. Over time, increased overt attention may be also given semasiologically to addressees, but explicit marking of intersubjectivity presupposes increased explicit marking of subjectivity.
While much remains to be understood about semantic change, work on pragmatics and discourse analysis gives us reason to believe that semantic change not only can be regular, but indeed must be so, if synchronic processes of inferencing and of strategic interaction are replicated from generation to generation.
In chapter 2 we review some earlier and current approaches to semantic change, with particular attention to hypotheses and findings that inform the present work. In the remainder of the book, several empirical studies will be presented of semantic changes from the perspective of IITSC. In chapter 3 we discuss the domain of modal verbs, including “core” auxiliaries (e.g. must), quasi-auxiliaries (e.g. ought to), most especially the development of epistemic modal meaning. The domain investigated in chapter 4 is that of adverbs like in fact, and Jp. sate “so,” which acquire discourse marker functions via an intermediate epistemic, adversative stage. Discourse marker uses are maximally subjective, and therefore the acquisition of discourse marker function is regarded as a case of subjectification. In chapter 5 we turn to the develop- ment of speech act verbs. The development from verbs with spatial meanings (e.g.
promise< Lat. pro “forward,” miss-past participle of “send”) to locutionary verbs
to verbs which can be used with illocutionary force illustrates a particular type of subjectification: in many cases, preemption by the speaker for institutional purposes of regulation and power. The last domain to be investigated is that of honorification in Japanese, that is, the development of intersubjective social deixis.
Although the domains that are the central focus of this book might seem rather disparate, they do in fact share several commonalities. The first domain involves
modality in a relatively narrow sense. In natural language modals typically express obligation or cast some doubt on the proposition: “The essence of ‘modality’ con- sists in the relativization of the validity of sentence meanings to a set of possible worlds” (Kiefer 1994: 2515). More broadly stated, modality expresses a perspective that considers the possibility of things being otherwise than they are. Our view of modality builds on work by Lyons (1977), Coates (1983), Chung and Timberlake (1985), Palmer (1986, 1990 [1979]), Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994) where dis- tinctions between “root” (or “deontic”) and epistemic meanings are central. Modal- ity can be expressed in different languages in a number of different ways, ranging from main verbs like Gm. willen, m¨ogen “want” to auxiliary or “light” verbs like
must, ought to, to adverbs like probably, and to routinized parenthetical expressions
such as I think (in other words, it may be more grammaticalized in one language than another). Jp. lacks a syntactically uniform set of items that correspond to Eng. modal auxiliary verbs. Instead, modality in Jp. is expressed by various means, in- cluding verb suffixes (e.g. -(r)eru “potential, the ability to carry out an action”), constructions built around predicate nouns and similar elements (e.g. hazu “expec- tation” and beki “obligation”), and periphrastic conditional verb constructions such as V-nakereba naranai (lit. “If one does not do V, (the situation) will not become (ac- ceptable)”). Although not usually considered modal on a narrow interpretation, nev- ertheless on a broad interpretation, certain adverbials with adversative function like
in fact, truly modify the truth of the proposition in partially epistemic ways. Likewise
verbs which can be used with speech act functions like promise can also be construed as broadly modal. Indeed, many are expressed indirectly by modals, e.g. promise by
will. The directive function of some speech act verbs imposes obligations on indi-
viduals like deontic modality, while the representative function expresses degree of commitment to the truth of a proposition somewhat like epistemic modality does. Like modals, some illocutionary verbs illustrate root (directive)> epistemic (as- sertive) meanings (e.g. “suggest that you do”> “suggest that something is the case”). There are several links between subtypes of modality and deixis. One is that epistemic modal verbs have been argued to have a deictic function, most obviously where they intersect with tense (Lyons 1982, Chung and Timberlake 1985, Frawley 1992, Diewald 1999). Another is that epistemic modal adverbials and discourse markers are deictic in that they index not only SP/W’s belief-state toward what he or she is saying/writing, but also SP/W’s perspective in terms of distance and proximity (Schiffrin 1990b). A third link is that although honorification is primarily a special kind of social deixis, it has links to modality. For example, certain uses of modals in English such as You must have some cake have been argued by R. Lakoff (1972) to serve functions reminiscent of honorification in Japanese. Together, then, the domains to be discussed exemplify various aspects of the developments of modality and deixis broadly construed.