Pourquoi suis-je moi ? : Journal (1993-1996) (Littérature Française) (French Edition)

These novels can be considered to be the works with which Mauriac sought to begin his attack on his parents. As he continued to write, he also found and consolidated a writing voice, which was of prime importance in bringing together parts of his fragmented self.

As he came to terms with the upbringing that he received, Mauriac did not come to terms with the demons of his sexuality, though. The reason why he did not disclose his homosexual longings boils down as usual to the family. Mauriac himself confessed to his friend Julien Green why he did not disclose his homosexual longings: Again, we can ask: By constantly attacking the family in his literary works, Mauriac simply tested the waters to see how his family would react to his attacks.

Moreover, by gauging the reaction of the family to issues like loveless intra-family relationships and deformed filial bonds, Mauriac was able to as- certain how his family would act in response to his disclosure of his homosexual longings. Judging by what he said to Green, it is clear that Mauriac knew that the disclosure of his homosexuality would utterly destroy his family, particularly his mother.

• Plantación de iglesias (Spanish Edition).
• !
• ?
• O Serão dos Miseráveis (Portuguese Edition).

For Mauriac, therefore, fictionalising the family became a creative quest, through which he sought to heal the psychic trauma haunting him throughout his whole life. Writing of this deep internal strife became a cathartic quest to purge himself of the guilt and the regret caused by his denial of his homosexuality and his failure to disclose this most intimate part of his life. Lejeune reveals that the written word becomes an avenue through which a distressed author shares his sorrow not just with a million other people, but with himself as well. The fact that the writer is able to create something out of his anguish represents a triumph over this anguish.

In his conclusion to posthumously published memoirs, La paix des cimes, Mauriac comments that poetry, and presumably, creative writing in general, must necessarily express the drama of man divided against himself, enabling him to finally understand what kind of love and sexuality he was made for: At this point, Mauriac reminds of Michel Foucault who asks himself: What is the secret of my desire? Literature represents for Mauriac a space where he can ad- dress his internal strife.

Mauriac completely denies the ho- mosexual longings that he has and that torment him each and every day of his existence. Although he apparently had no compunction in attacking the family, especially his parents for his upbringing, he continually sought to spare his family from the ultimate anguish that he could ever inflict on it. La fin de la nuit. La paix des cimes: Fictional Relationships and the Process of Psychological Change.

Presses Universitaires de France. Poe and the Function of Literature. The Will to Know. Foucault on Homosexuality and Social Ex- perimentation. Foucault Studies, 7, Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Click here to sign up. It is important to distinguish between language con- tact in a certain society, generally termed as language contact, and language contact in a certain speaker, generally termed as bilingualism or multilingualism.

Here, several factors influence the degree of bilingualism or multilingualism of a speaker. These factors include, amongst others, the age of language acquisition, the modalities of language acquisition, the sociolinguistic envi- ronment and the degree of language proficiency. In the last decades, bilingualism and multilingualism have been extensively studied from a psy- cholinguistic perspective. Research questions include the exact nature of the bilingual mental lexicon, the storage and processing of more than one language in the bilingual brain and the interaction and influence of the languages in the bilingual brain.

In contrast, language change and language contact have not been in the focus of psycholinguistic investigations. Language change has mainly been investigated from a historical perspective. In early research on language contact, it has been questioned if language contact played an impor- tant role in the development of languages at all.

The present work aims to investigate cross-linguistic influences in language contact situations by means of the linguistic expressions pragmatic markers. In the present work, I refer to pragmatic markers as a class of words, but this terminology and classification is by no means an uncontroversial issue see chapter 4. They generally emerge through processes of grammaticali- zation or pragmaticalization from already existent lexical items.

Pragmatic markers are known to be very suited for language change in contact, because they are syntactically very detachable and often do not contribute to the propositional content of an utterance. The aim of the present work is to analyze, by means of own corpus data, how pragmatic markers develop in a language contact situation and, by means of experimental investigations, which implications this change has on bilingual language processing.

A variety of Canadian French, the Franco-Manitoban, spoken in the Canadian province of Manitoba, serves as basis for an own corpus of spoken and informal speech data. This variety of Canadian French has experienced a long period of intensive language contact with English and is highly influenced by the English language. Therefore, Franco-Manitoban is very suited for an analysis of pragmatic markers in language contact. The underlying speech data was collected with highly fluent and early bilingual Fran- co-Manitoban speakers and therefore, the corpus data contains English and French to unequal parts.

After a detailed analysis of the corpus data, the processes found in the corpus analysis will be investigated experimentally. The combination of a corpus-based approach and a psycholin- guistic approach aims to give a broad view over pragmatic markers in language contact and the impact on bilingual language processing. The choice to investigate pragmatic markers in language contact situation has different moti- vations. First, a cross-linguistic analysis of pragmatic markers can give important insights into their role in language change. Second, these insights may help to point out the specific charac- teristics and the functioning of pragmatic markers in general.

Third, only very few psycholin- guistic studies have focused on pragmatic markers and very little is known about their role in language processing. Psycholinguistic research is mainly based on prototypical word classes, such as nouns and verbs. Research on non-prototypical word classes, such as pragmatic markers, may give important insights into language processing and the models of the mental lexicon. Forth, the impacts of language contact on language processing have not been investigated at all from a psycholinguistic perspective.

Therefore, experimental investigations on language contact phe- nomena, based on natural speech data, may help to clarify if these changes are also anchored in language processing. The first chapter of the present work gives a brief overview about pragmatic markers and lan- guage change. Pragmatic markers are a very heterogeneous class of words, which is not clearly defined, classified and delimitated.

Furthermore, the first chapter introduces different processes of language internal and contact-induced language change. The second chapter of this work focuses on bilingual language processing from a psycholinguistic perspective. In the first parts, current models of bilingual language representation and processing will be introduced and dis advantages of the respective models will be highlighted.

The third part of the second chapter focuses on semantic, conceptual and pragmatic representations in the bilingual brain, delimiting these different notions and introducing past research on this topic. The third chapter aims to introduce the underlying contact variety of the present work, the Franco-Manitoban. First, the sociolinguistic and historic background will be highlighted, with special focus on linguistic peculiarities of this variety and past linguistic research.

Each analysis is preceded by a detailed overview about current research on the respective markers, their emergence and their functioning in monolingual contexts. The actual corpus analysis then contrasts the monolingual use of the respective markers, based on monolingual corpus data, with the use of these markers in the corpus data of the contact variety Franco-Manitoban. The main focus lies on the question how the markers developed in the spe- cific language contact situation and how their use differs from their purely monolingual use.

Re- garding the results, it will be questioned if the markers underwent processes of contact-induced language change and how these changes manifest themselves. Chapter five aims to consider the results of the corpus analysis from a psycholinguistic perspec- tive. Here, the focus will be on the impacts of the different processes of language change on bilingual language processing and how they can be explained by means of different models of bilingual lexical access and language representation.

Chapter six presents the experimental investigation on pragmatic markers in language contact. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of different processes of language change in a contact variety on language processing. Experiment 1 focuses on monolingual French pragmatic markers in sentence processing, whereas Experiment 2 focuses on bilingual pragmatic markers in word processing.

In both experiments, Franco-Manitoban-speaking early bilinguals serve as experimental group and European French speaking late bilinguals serve as the control group. The main results of the experiments will be discussed and related to the results from the corpus analysis and to current models of bilingual language processing.

While first approaches to pragmatic markers come from text linguistics and conversation analysis, prag- matic markers now constitute one of the major research focuses of pragmatics. Despite the extensive research on pragmatic markers, there is still no mutual agreement on fundamental questions of this field.

Therefore, the first part of this chapter aims to provide an outline of cru- cial questions in research on pragmatic markers, that is, their definition and classification as well as their meaning patterns and their functions. Different theoretic approaches will be discussed with regard to the focus of the present work.

As the aim of the present work is a cross-linguistic analysis of pragmatic markers in language contact, it is crucial to consider current approaches and theoretical considerations to process- es of language change and outcomes of language contact. The second subchapter provides an overview of processes of language change with a special focus to the emergence and evolution of pragmatic markers. On the one hand, the focus lies on monolingual processes such as grammat- icalization and pragmaticalization.

On the other hand, processes of language change in language contact situations, such as replication and borrowing, will be considered. The conclusive part of this chapter provides a preliminary introduction to the peculiarities of pragmatic markers in language contact situations. In the last decades a large number of studies tried to approach the field of pragmatic markers from different perspectives among the most influential works can be cited e.

However, it is not only complicated that the respective class of words has several different names in different studies, it is far more problematic that, depending on the respective denomination, the class of words may include or exclude very differing types of words.

The term connectives often includes lexemes such as therefore, and, because or but. In contrast, the term particle or French particule generally puts the focus on monosyllabic lexemes such as so, well and ben. Here, the different termini focus on two different functionings of this class of words. In this respect, the term pragmatic marker is chosen in the present work, because the focus lies on pragmatic and semantic functions and meanings of the respective markers.

Here, the present work follows e. While it is relatively unproblematic to choose a suitable denomination, it is much more prob- lematic to classify and to delimitate the class of pragmatic markers. For example, Blakemore classifies as pragmatic markers lexemes such as after all and moreover and Schiffrin includes lexemes like because, and, then in her classification.

Other authors, such as Schourup do not include the above-named lexemes, but imply different kinds of interjections, such as hey and aha Jucker, Ziv The delimitation of the class is indeed one of the main problems in research on pragmatic mark- ers. Does this word class include interjections, modal particles, hedges, hesitation signals etc.? In order to find a possible answer to this question, it is crucial to take a look at different definitions of pragmatic markers and at their functioning. Some researchers have tried to define a general function of the overall class of pragmatic markers.

Here, the focus lies mainly on the relation or relevance of parts of an utterance or the specific contextual information. Schiffrin assumes that pragmatic markers have an indexical function in that they point to special contextual features. Blakemore argues that the main function of pragmatic mark- ers is to indicate how discourse elements depend on each other.

Fraser states that prag- matic markers mainly signal sequential discourse relationships. While these approaches try to assign one major feature to the class of pragmatic markers, other approaches try to establish a whole list of features of pragmatic markers, such as Brinton She differentiates between phonological features such as the phonological reduction, syn- tactic features, such as the sentence-peripheral position, semantic features, such as the lack of propositional meaning, and functional features, such as the restriction to oral rather than written discourse see Brinton for a more detailed discussion.

When trying to define the class of pragmatic markers, it is crucial to consider two major problems that are the delimitation and the classification of the class of words. When saying that pragmatic markers are mainly short items e. When saying that pragmatic markers do not contribute to the prop- ositional content of an utterance e. Brinton , Schiffrin , this excludes automatically different kinds of hedging functions, such as rounders and approximators. When stating that pragmatic markers occur mainly in sentence-peripheral, especially in sentence-initial, position, this excludes a wide range of items such as connectives, modal particles, hedges, etc.

The present work relies on the following characteristics of pragmatic markers. In the present account, hedges are included in the group of pragmat- ic markers to a certain extent. This is because some pragmatic markers may fulfill discourse-prag- matic function on the one hand and hedging functions on the other see chapter 4. Still, it is clearly differentiated between hedges and pragmatic markers, because both may vary important- ly in their respective characteristics.

It has to be pointed out that the present account does not include interjections, connectives, hesitation and monitoring signals as pragmatic markers. The above-named characteristics will be explained in detail in the following. To do so, it is useful to take a separate look at the semantic meanings of pragmatic markers, their pragmatic functions and their discourse-related properties. In the present understanding, the semantic meaning pat- terns of a pragmatic marker are defined as its contributions to the propositional content see e. The pragmatic functions of a pragmatic marker are contextually determined and may have metacommunicative reasons.

The discourse-structuring functions serve pure dis- course-structuring and monitoring reasons. It is not always possible to distinguish unequivocally between pragmatic and discourse-structuring functions see chapter 4. Semantic meaning patterns There is by far no agreement on the semantic meaning patterns of pragmatic markers and espe- cially on their interrelation and their nature. Here, the main questions concern two very differ- ent aspects of the meaning of pragmatic markers. The first problem is to define the interrelation of semantic meaning patterns, that is to decide if pragmatic markers are polysemous or mon- osemous items.

It is generally accepted that most pragmatic markers emerged from other word types through processes such as grammaticalization or pragmaticalization. This leads to the fact that pragmatic markers commonly have more than one meaning. When taking a polysemy perspective on pragmatic markers e. The polysemy approach claims that: This invariant meaning may describe the common core of the occur- rences of the item under consideration, its prototype, or an instruction.

Individ- ual interpretations arise from general pragmatic processes and are not attributed to the item itself. But also scholars following the polysemy approach may assume that prag- matic markers have a core meaning from a polysemic perspective , in that they have one mean- ing that is more dominant than others see e.

Still, in a polysemy approach it is not a prerequisite to assume a core meaning, it is also possible to accept different interrelated meanings without one clear dominant sense e. Especially in the monosemy approach, determining a core meaning is not without problems. The core meaning is often too broad and cannot really distinguish a certain pragmatic marker from others.

This is mainly due to the fact that a core meaning does not only try to account for the different semantic meaning patterns of a pragmatic marker but also for its pragmatic and intertextual functioning Aijmer This gets particularly complicated in studies that focus on cross-linguistic comparisons of discourse-pragmatic features and meaning patterns of pragmatic markers. Waltereit points out that there is no satisfactory way of comparing partial equivalent pragmatic markers from different languages from a monosemy perspective, because it cannot explain functional differences in the different languages Waltereit On the contrary, the polysemy approach can account for cross-language differences and seman- tic change without problems.

This is because, from a diachronic perspective, non-systematic polysemy itself is the result of language change Waltereit Furthermore, the polysemy approach allows that pragmatic markers from different languages may overlap in some of their meanings and functions and not in others. This assumption is a very important prerequisite for research on diachronic language change, contact-induced language change and cross-linguistic variation.

A second problem in research on pragmatic markers is the question whether they contribute to the truth-conditional meaning of an utterance or not and whether they encode conceptual meaning or not. The distinction between truth-conditional and non-truth-conditional mean- ing commonly describes the distinction between semantics truth-conditional and pragmatics non-truth-conditional.

Most studies assume that pragmatic markers generally do not affect the truth conditions of a sentence. That is to say that they rather indicate how to interpret an utterance than to contribute to its content. She defends a rele- vance-theoretic approach to pragmatic markers, based on Sperber and Wilson see also Andersen This view is based on the differentiation between conceptual and procedural meaning, that is: In this view, pragmatic markers are not directly mapped onto a conceptual representation but function as items that modify the interpretation of an utterance and help the hearer to decode the message.

Journal Julien Green | Awards | LibraryThing

That is lexemes encoding conceptual meaning are linked to concepts, while lexemes encoding procedural meaning are linked to states of language users, e. The strict distinction between words encoding procedural and conceptual meaning has been criticized in current research e. Fraser claims that lexical items can encode procedural meaning and a conceptual component of meaning at the same time.

Although the distinction between conceptual and procedural meaning aims to be particularly suited for a cognitive approach to meaning, it is not clear from a psycholinguistic perspective how this distinction is related to theories of language processing and recent models of the monolingual or bilingual mental lexicon see chapter 2.

• Surprise Seduction.
• Caught in the Act!
• Sorry for Love.
• ;
• Les armes à énergie dirigée mythe ou réalité ? (Défense, Stratégie et Relations Internationales) (French Edition).
• !

This issue is addressed in the present work, which takes a psycholinguistic perspective on conceptual and semantic representations in language processing see chapter 2. Pragmatic functions As already mentioned, pragmatic markers are characterized by their spectrum of pragmatic func- tions.

Works (27)

This polyfunctionality is commonly accepted and also goes back to the evolution paths of pragmatic markers. Most markers emerged from already existing lexical items such as adverbs e. Still, all of these lexical items developed pragmatic functions over time see 1.

Furthermore, most pragmatic markers are also polyfunc- tional at the pragmatic level. While there is general agreement on the fact that pragmatic mark- ers are polyfunctional items, there is discussion on an explanation. From a monosemy approach, every marker has a core meaning that varies according to the respective contextually determined meanings and functions. From a polysemy approach, the different functions are simply a result of the polysemy that is of the emergence of new functions over time.

It is self-evident that different pragmatic markers differ importantly in their pragmatic func- tions. But it is still possible to point out some functions, which occur on a more frequent basis. Another function of pragmatic markers may be to establish coherence in discourse interpretation. She refers to this phenomenon as indexicality, that is pragmatic markers create an indexical relation to the context and therefore serve in utterance interpretation.

According to Aijmer, it is not possible to determine the concrete number of functions of a prag- matic marker. In contrast to this opinion, a wide range of studies has tried to establish the se- mantic meaning patterns and functions of specific pragmatic markers see chapter 4. In light of this it is considered problematic establishing universally valid pragmatic features for pragmatic markers. Here, it seems more plausible to determine the functions of a given pragmatic marker on the basis of corpus data.

The pragmatic functions of the specific markers will be discussed in detail in chapter 4. She regards discourse markers in the more narrow understanding, in that they aim to have mainly discourse-structuring and -segmentation functions. In a broader understanding, pragmatic markers also include mainly semantic and pragmatic functions as mentioned above. According to her, pragmatic markers have seg- mentation functions, for example as opening or closing signals.

Series by cover

According to Blakemore , pragmatic markers are therefore meta-pragmatic instructions for the processing of an utterance. As well as Fraser and Schiffrin , she points out that pragmatic markers function to segment and link utterances. Here, pragmatic markers may mark utterance boundaries or even bracket cer- tain utterances. Examples for marking utterance boundaries are pragmatic markers introducing reported speech, a result or a conclusion. Still, pragmatic markers may not only help the hearer with utterance interpretation, but also the speaker with utterance performance.

As filler in paus- es or hesitations, the speaker can signal that he has not yet finished his utterance. As a turn-open- er, a pragmatic marker may signal that a conversation partner claims the right to speak. As a closing signal the speaker may advise the conversation partners that he has finished his utterance.

It already has been suggested that the syntactic position of pragmatic markers plays an important role in their functioning. This becomes very clear when regarding their discourse-structuring functions. Especially as segmentation and boundary markers, pragmatic markers generally stand in utterance-peripheral positions. Furthermore, pragmatic markers are generally syntactically detachable from the rest of the utterance without modifying the propositional content. The precise discourse-structuring functions of the underlying pragmatic markers of the present work will be discussed in detail in chapter 4.

Hedges Classic hedges include lexical items such as sort of, kind of, I think, I mean, I guess. This definition still lacks some important functions of hedges that do not necessarily attenuate the semantic value. Hedges have been analyzed extensively in the last decades and have been associated with research on politeness as well as with research on pragmatic markers. Brown and Levinson argued that hedges are a device to avoid disagreement and a strategy of negative politeness.

The present understanding of hedges is based on Prince et al. They proposed a detailed classification of the subclasses of hedges: Classification of hedges adapted from Prince et al. Approximators are defined as lexical items that modify the truth-conditions of an expression while shields do not affect the truth-conditions of an utterance. Adaptors trigger a loose reading of a lexical unit or expression and operate on the semantic level of an utterance; whereas rounders modify a numeral value in that they indicate a vague interpretation.

In con- trast, shields do not modify the semantics of an utterance but rather soften a statement and alter the illocutionary force see Mihatsch While other scholars extended this classification recently e. Caffi , , the present work will however rely on the classification of Prince et al. As desirable as it may be to establish a classification and a definition for hedges, it is still unclear how they differ from the class of pragmatic markers. Hedges do not have any discourse-structur- ing functions and they generally do not stand in sentence-peripheral positions.

This may only be the case for the shield function, which is syntactically very flexible and can have a very large scope. Furthermore, approximators in Prince et al. This is not the case for shields, which do not operate on the propositional content but on the illocutionary force of an utterance. In contrast, pragmatic markers, as defined in this chapter, fulfill pragmatic and discourse-struc- turing functions, do not modify the propositional content of an utterance and mostly occur in utterance-peripheral positions.

As mentioned above, some lexical items may as well function as both a pragmatic marker and a hedging device e. English like or Canadian French comme; see chapter 4. For this reason, the function hedging may be a function of pragmatic markers. Still, hedging functions are clear- ly distinguishable from pragmatic functions and discourse-structuring functions of pragmatic markers, because they act on the utterance level. But there is no mutual agreement on how to correctly describe and classify these processes of emergence of pragmatic markers.

Therefore, the first part of this subchapter aims to introduce the notions of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization as possible underlying processes of language change of pragmatic mark- ers. The second subchapter then puts the focus on contact-induced language change and related processes of pragmatic markers due to language contact. The emphasis here lies on the processes of grammatical replication and borrowing.

One of the most influential definitions of grammaticalization comes from Lehmann: Grammaticalization is a process leading from lexemes to grammatical forma- tives. A number of semantic, syntactic and phonological processes interact in the grammaticalization of morphemes and of whole constructions. V This definition implies that grammaticalization consists of different underlying processes, which in the end result in a grammaticalized form.

Haspelmath includes specific characteristics and features of grammaticalization in his definition: Haspelmath According to his definition, grammaticalization is a gradual process, which implies different processes and modifies the underlying lexeme in a way that changes its characteristics. This defi- nition may indeed have to be regarded with caution, because it does not become clear in which way grammaticalization is a gradual process.

As mentioned later in this chapter, the individual stages of grammaticalization do not appear gradually but rather abrupt. Traugott emphasizes in her definition that not only lexemes may become grammatical forms but also grammatical forms may become more grammatical: Grammaticalization […] is that subset of linguistic changes whereby lexical ma- terial in highly constrained pragmatic and morphosyntactic contexts becomes grammatical, and grammatical material becomes more grammatical. But which mechanisms exactly are underlying the concept of grammaticalization? Further underlying mechanisms are of semantic and phonological nature.

From a semantic perspective, the semantic bleaching of a lexeme is a very important feature in grammaticalization. Furthermore, gram- maticalization often goes along with phonological reduction, such as the English future marker going to reduced to gonna. Traugott resumes the mechanisms and features of grammaticalization as follows: That is to say that the listeners ratify grammaticalization by reanalysis.

Apart from these characteristics, respectively the underlying processes, of grammaticalization mentioned above, Lehmann established parameters, which help to determine the degree of grammaticalization of a given lexeme: Parameters of grammaticalization adapted from Lehmann Still, the parameters of Lehmann also have been regarded from a critical perspective e.

According to them, grammaticalization arises when a lexeme is used in a new context and, in extension, loses parts of its initial meaning patterns. Here, they differentiate between four stages of grammaticalization, that is an initial stage, a bridging context, a switch context and the conventionalization Heine In the initial stage, the lexeme is used in its initial context. In the bridging context, the lexeme is used in a new, innovative context, in which its meaning differs from the initial stage.

According to Heine , bridging contexts have the following underlying properties: They trigger an inferential mechanism to the effect that, rather than the source meaning, there is another meaning, the target meaning, that offers a more plausible interpretation of the utterance concerned. While the target meaning is the most likely to be inferred, it is still can- cellable see Grice , that is, an interpretation in terms of the source meaning cannot be ruled out.

Pourquoi suis-je moi? Journal 1993-1996.

A given linguistic form may be associated with a number of different bridging contexts. Bridging contexts may, but need not, give rise to conventional gramma- tical meanings. In the third stage, the switch context, the lexeme is mainly used in its new meanings; the initial meaning is blocked and almost lost. These stages from a minor to a major use pattern have been visualized by Heine and Kuteva, excluding the initial stage, as follows: The approach of Heine and Kuteva will be explained in more detail in the upcoming subchapter, with regard to contact-induced language change see also chapter 4.

A third approach to grammaticalization was introduced by Traugott e. She focuses particularly on the semantic and pragmatic mechanisms to grammaticalization in order to explain the emergence processes of pragmatic markers. According to her, the most important element in grammaticalization is subjectivity.

In her earlier works, she states that grammatical- ization follows from propositional to textual and then to expressive stages Traugott In more recent studies, she distinguishes between subjectivity and intersubjectivity: For the present work, two main issues have been identified as extremely relevant. The first concerns the directionality of language change and the second concerns the question whether pragmatic markers underlie grammaticalization processes or not. The directionality of language change and especially of grammaticalization has been subject to much discussion in the past decades for a discussion see e.

The directionality hypothesis states that grammaticalization, as a diachronic phenomenon is generally a unidirectional process. That is to say that a lexical item can become a more grammatical item over time, but that this process is not reversible. In the debate on the directionality hypothesis, several authors take very differing positions. The strongest position on unidirectionality is that every grammaticalization process implies a shift from lexical to more grammatical meaning and that this process is always irreversible e. Haspelmath , ; Lehmann Still, this very strong statement has to cope with some counterevidence.

This has lead some scholars to the assump- tion that unidirectionality cannot be an important characteristic of grammaticalization, because counterexamples exist e. A second crucial issue for the present work concerns the question if the emergence and evolution of pragmatic markers is a case of grammaticalization. As mentioned above, some scholars see the emergence of pragmatic markers as a clear case of grammaticalization e.

Series: Journal Julien Green

But other scholars, who assume that pragmatic markers do not underlie the process of grammat- icalization because they do not emerge to grammatical items, challenge this view e. The term pragmaticalization has been introduced by Erman and Kotsinas and describes the process of a formerly lexical item turning into a pragmatic item. The main problem in this discussion is the definition of grammar and pragmatics.

But when regarding the processes of grammaticalization and its definition more closely, it becomes apparent why some scholars re- fute the notion of grammaticalization for pragmatic markers. Pragmatic markers do not develop grammatical functions and also do not follow grammaticalization parameters Dostie They especially contradict the notions of loss of syntactic freedom and fixation of the position, which are important elements in reanalysis.

The discussion on grammaticalization and pragmaticalization still rests unsolved and it depends on the approach of the respective author which term is chosen for a detailed discussion see e. For some authors, the two terms are not mutually exclusive and may be combined in a larger concept.

Dostie states that the term grammaticalization as such is a polysemous term. Therefore, it is possible to regard grammaticalization in a strict sense and in a broad sense, but these two meanings have to be differentiated clearly Dostie In the present understanding, pragmaticalization is seen as a distinct type of language change, which overlaps with grammaticalization in certain functions. That is to say, grammaticalization and pragmaticalization start as very similar processes, but result in a different final outcome. It has to be differentiated explicitly whether a lexical item develops grammatical or pragmatic func- tions, whereby it is possible that an item may develop both at the same time see Traugott Furthermore, the present work relies on the grammaticalization approach of Heine and Kuteva, which will be presented in more detail and with focus on contact-induced language change in the upcoming subchapter.

These are borrowing or copying on the one hand and interference, transfer or replication on the other hand Winford When talking about cross-linguistic change, Heine and Kuteva assume a model language also source lan- guage , providing the pattern for transfer, and a replica language also target or borrowing lan- guage , receiving the pattern. To underline this very broad definition, they classified different kinds of linguistic transfer as follows: Form, that is, sounds or combinations of sounds b. Form—meaning units or combinations of form—meaning units d.

Syntactic relations, that is, the order of meaningful elements e. Other scholars employ different terms, such as Johanson , who relies on the concept of code copying and differs between selective and global copying. This amount of different denominations may be especially confusing in some cases.

In contrast, Heine and Kuteva , , use the term replication as opposed to the term borrowing. In the present work, the term contact-induced language change will be employed as an umbrella term for different kinds of cross-linguistic influence and trans- fer. I follow Heine and Kuteva in the terminology of naming the main types of contact-induced language transfer, which can be visualized in the figure below: Contact-induced linguistic transfer Replication Borrowing Grammatical replication Lexical replication Contact-induced grammaticalization Restructuring Rearrangement Loss Figure 4.

Grammatical replication describes the gradual transfer of meanings or meaning patterns includ- ing grammatical meaning from a model language to a replica language. This statement appears very curious at the first view, but it accords with their context-induced approach on internal grammaticalization. Grammatical replication contrasts with borrowing in that it does not include the transfer of pho- netic material, which is a crucial point in borrowing.

Furthermore, it is important to differen- tiate grammatical replication from polysemy copying, also called calquing or loan translations, in which a meaning is only copied. Hence, in grammatical replication in general as well as in contact-induced grammaticalization in particular, the pattern in question follows gradual grammaticalization paths, which are comparable to inner-language grammaticalization see. That is to say that in these replication processes, bridging contexts can be identified in diachron- ic and sometimes even in synchronic studies.

Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms. Journal Julien Green Series by cover. Related book awards Image: How do series work? Helpers europhile 26 , Toledoth 12 , Bouquin 1. Journal Julien Green Series by cover 1—8 of 27 next show all. Journal by Julien Green. Journal, by Julien Green. Diary, by Julian Green. Ce qui reste de jour. La terre est si belle