Evolutionary pragmatics, subjectification, and verbs like to worry or to cope (with)

Eva Zehentner(joint project with Nikolaus Ritt)

ISLE 3, Zurich 2014

2

“It is in and through language that man constitutes himself as a subject, because language alone establishes the concept of ‘ego’ in reality [...]. The subjectivity we are discussing here is the capacity of the speaker to posit himself as a ‘subject’”

(Benveniste 1958: 268)

“The term subjectivity refers to the way in which natural languages,in their structure and their normal manner of operation, provide forthe locutionary agent’s expression of himself and his own attitudesand beliefs”

(Lyons 1982: 102)

Subjectivity

3

“Meanings are recruited by the speaker to encode and regulate [his/her subjective] attitudes and beliefs” (Traugott 2010: 35)

“A process of semanticization of pragmatic aspects of meaning (i.e., ‘pragmatic strengthening’)” (De Smet & Verstraete 2006: 367)

Subjectification

4

Theory of Mind / Intentional Stance

“[ …] first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world […]. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs”

(Dennett 1987: 17)

“The ‘intentional stance’ is the phenomenon of interpreting behavior in terms of the belief states of the mind that is behind the behavior”

(Dunbar 2004: 100)

“Theory of Mind refers to the folk psychological theory that we use to predict and explain others’ behaviour on the basis of their internal workings: their feelings, intentions, desires, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and point of view”

(Villiers 2007: 1858)

5

Speakers are, know that others are, and know that others know they are …

o agents with goals and desires,o who take a partial (self-interested) view of the world,o which they see, interpret, and evaluate from their subjective points of

view

→ cognitive bias (biologically selected for); anthropological constant

Theory of subjectivity (’)

6

SUBJECT SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVITY

reflects the fact that individualsubjects or selves have ...

Subject specific points of view

Subject specific goals and desires

Subject specific attitudes

DEFAULT CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECTIVITY (DCS)

reflects the fact that ALL subjects or selves have ...

Generally ‘self-ish’ (i.e. restricted and partial) points-of-view

Generally ‘self-ish’ goals and desires

Generally ‘self-ish’ attitudes

• un-knowable (a priori)

• ‘interesting’ and potentially new information

• in need of explicit codification in discourse

• knowable

• taken for granted, given information

• available for pragmatic inferencing in all discourse events

7

Theory of subjectification (’)

communicative need to express/ encode aspects of specific subjectivity (need of individual selves to express their subjective perspectives)

VS.

cognitive constructions of human self; prototypical expectations, shared among interlocutors, about perspectives a typical self usually has;

shared background information universally available for pragmatic inferencing

8

Aspects of DCS are likely to get associated with words when they undergo semantic bleaching

OUR ACCOUNT

When words fail to communicate sufficiently new/specific/relevant information

→ ‘re-plenishing’ with content derived from given background knowledge

→ eventual re-interpretation as encoding these aspects by convention

9

OED online &

COHA (1810-2009)

10

2 case studies of language (semantic/syntactic) change

reflecting the impact of DCS

Verbs like

to cope (with)to deal withto manage (to)to handle to grapple (with)

…

Experiencer/ Psych-verbs

to worryto liketo hurt

‘Impersonal expressions’

methinksIt rains

…

11

Case study I: to worry(representative of a larger group of verbs

including to hurt etc.)

Cf., among others, Allen 1995, 2012; Arad 1998; Bouchard 1995; Cole et al. 1980; Fischer2004; Malkuchov & Siewierska 2011; Traugott 2005; Gelderen 2011, 2014; Visser 1963-73

12

to worry

o Harald […] threwe hym to the grounde and had wyried [MS. γ ywyryed]

hym with his hondes

‘Harald threw him to the ground and strangled him with his hands’

(1387; J. Trevisa tr. R. Higden Polychron. (MS. β) VII. 534; OED)

(A) to kill (a person or animal) by compressing the throat; to strangle

13

(B) To harass by rough or severe treatment, by repeated aggression or attack; to assail with hostile or menacing speech

o I thought verily they woulde haue worried one another with wordes

‘I truly thought they would have attacked/harassed one another with words’(1594; T. Nashe Vnfortunate Traveller sig. F2v; OED)

o Cromwell […] marched forwards into Scotland, and left Lambert to worry

Hamilton in England

(a1683; P. Warwick Mem. Reign Charles I (1701) 321; OED)

to worry

14

(C) To cause distress of mind to; to afflict with mental trouble or agitation; to make anxious and ill at ease (chiefly of a cause or circumstance)

o He had settled the point which had been worrying his mind.(1822; W. Irving Bachelor's Conf. in Bracebridge Hall; OED)

o This self-plagiarism sometimes worries us.(1876; L. Stephen Hours in Libr. 2nd Ser. vii. 330; OED)

o I quite fret and worry myself about her.

(1846; Dickens Dombey & Son (1848) v. 36; OED)

to worry

15

(D) To give way to anxiety or mental disquietude

o When she can find nothing to do, then she worries.(1861; J. G. Holland Lessons in Life xiii. 181; OED)

o ‘Don't coddle and don't worry’ is his recipe for longevity.(1874; Ld. Coleridge in Life (1904) II. ix. 244; OED)

o "Don't you worry, I acted like a gentleman." "I'm not worrying."(1937; Oliver LaFarge, Enemy Gods; COHA)

to worry

16

(i) Widening

specific manner of interaction; two animate participants (agent/patient)

o Tua gret serpentis […] The quhilk he wyrreit wyth his handis tuay

‘Two great snakes…the which he strangled with his two hands’

(1513; G. Douglas tr. Virgil Æneid viii. v. 26; OED)

unspecific manner of interaction; experiencer/ highly variable source

o She has enough to worry about.(1963; Randall Garrett, Anything You Can Do…; COHA)

17

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Fra

ctio

n of

type

s of

sou

rces

of '

to w

orry

'

1810

s

1820

s

1830

s

1840

s

1850

s

1860

s

1870

s

1880

s

1890

s

1900

s

1910

s

1920

s

1930

s

1940

s

1950

s

1960

s

1970

s

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

animate source

inanimate source

no source

Pearson’s product moment:animate source: p = 3.227e-05; r = -0.7914878 inanimate source: p = 0.0669; r =0.4176607 no source: p = 3.986e-07; r = 0.8766242

to worry

[SubjSource [V ObjExperiencer]]

[SubjAgent [V Objpatient (ComplSource)]]

[SubjExperiencer [V ComplSource]]

[SubjExperiencer [V Ø]]

18

(ii) Reanalysisreassignment of semantic relations to grammatical roles

ObjExp↓

SubjExp↓

(Agent?)

19

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Fra

ctio

ns o

f d

iffe

ren

t co

nstr

uctio

ns fo

r 'to

wo

rry'

18

10

s

18

20

s

18

30

s

18

40

s

18

50

s

18

60

s

18

70

s

18

80

s

18

90

s

19

00

s

19

10

s

19

20

s

19

30

s

19

40

s

19

50

s

19

60

s

19

70

s

19

80

s

19

90

s

20

00

s

ObjExp

SubjExp

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Fra

ctio

ns o

f d

iffe

ren

t co

nstr

uctio

ns fo

r 'to

wo

rry'

18

10

s

18

20

s

18

30

s

18

40

s

18

50

s

18

60

s

18

70

s

18

80

s

18

90

s

19

00

s

19

10

s

19

20

s

19

30

s

19

40

s

19

50

s

19

60

s

19

70

s

19

80

s

19

90

s

20

00

s

ObjExp

SubjExp+PP

SubjExp+0

Pearson’s product moment:ObjExp: p = 1.63e-08; r = -0.914881 SubjExp+PP: p = 1.015e-05; r = 0.818802 SubjExp+∅: p = 3.986e-07; r = 0.8766242

Pearson’s product moment:ObjExp: p = 1.63e-08; r = -0.914881 SubjExp: p = 1.63e-08; r = 0.914881

to worry

20

antagonistic force (source/stimulus)

Why can the development of to worry be taken to reflect the impact of DCS?

agentpatient/afflicted

entity

human experiencer (agonist)

interaction between two participants

21

human experiencer (agonist)

identification between speaker and agonist increases

antagonistic force (source/stimulus)

role of antagonist open to anybody/ anything that is unlike speaker

22

more frequently given, cognitively accessible

human experiencer (agonist)

typically new/important/salient information from the perspective

of the speaker

tendency to become associated with syntactic subject

tendency to become associated with syntactic object

antagonistic force (source/stimulus)

23

Interim summary: Why can the development of to worry be taken to reflect the impact of DCS?

(i) Widening

(ii) Reanalysis

o speakers assume perspectives when conceptualising interactions, i.e. side/identify with one of involved participants

o increased identification between speaker and agonist → wider range of entities able to play role of antagonist (anybody/ anything NOT like speaker)

o participant whose perspective speaker assumes: typically expressed as syntactic subject → change in mapping between semantic relations and grammatical roles (antagonistic force: syntactic object)

24

Interim summary: Why can the development of to worry be taken to reflect the impact of DCS?

widening of meaning of to worry

association (‘re-plenishing’) with pragmatically available notions of DCS

eventual semanticisation

25

Case study II: to cope (with)(representative of a larger group of verbs including

to deal with, to manage, to win, to handle etc.)

26

to cope (with)

o He wolde nevyr cope whithe no man.

‘He would never fight with any man’(ca. 1467; W. Gregory Chron.; OED)

to come to blows with, engage, encounter, contend, fight with so.

o The thought of coping with software problems and

rebooting before I can watch TV.(2005; Time Magazine; COHA)

to manage, deal (competently) with, a situation or problem

27

(i) Widening

o So kenli þei a-cuntred at þe coupyng to-gadere

‘so bravely they met in fighting together’ (ca. 1375; William of Palerne; OED)

specific manner of interaction; human subject, human object

o His being too unwell to cope with Dr. Johnson […]. (1782; Fanny Burney, Diary; OED)

o [...] the difficulties and hazards we had to cope with. (1726; G. Shelvocke, Voy. round World; OED)

unspecific manner of interaction; object unspecified (anim/inanim/Ø)

28

to cope (with)

Pearson’s product moment:animate object: p = 1.333e-08; r = -0.9168316 inanimate object: p = 3.011e-05; r = 0.7932395no object: p = 7.262e-05; r = 0.7696166

Pearson’s product moment:inanimate object: p = 1.324e-08; r = 0.9168972 no object: p = 0.0001063; r = 0.7584658

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Fra

ctio

ns o

f d

iffe

ren

t o

bje

cts

typ

es o

f 'to

co

pe

with

'

18

10

s

18

20

s

18

30

s

18

40

s

18

50

s

18

60

s

18

70

s

18

80

s

18

90

s

19

00

s

19

10

s

19

20

s

19

30

s

19

40

s

19

50

s

19

60

s

19

70

s

19

80

s

19

90

s

20

00

s

animate object

inanimate object

no object

05

10

15

No

rma

lise

d fre

qu

en

cie

s o

f d

iffe

ren

t o

bje

cts

typ

es o

f 'to

co

pe

with

'

18

10

s

18

20

s

18

30

s

18

40

s

18

50

s

18

60

s

18

70

s

18

80

s

18

90

s

19

00

s

19

10

s

19

20

s

19

30

s

19

40

s

19

50

s

19

60

s

19

70

s

19

80

s

19

90

s

20

00

s

animate object

inanimate object

no object

29

as object of interaction becomes optional, coping comes to mean ‘get by successfully’

o On that day, I had little doubt Americans would cope.(2003; American Spectator, COHA)

(ii) Narrowing cum amelioration

(desired) success of the interaction becomes pragmatically inferable, above all in negative or irrealis contexts

o They have not been able to cope with the troops of Athens. (1710; J. Addison, Whig Examiner, OED)

success of conflict is semanticised

o Well, Mona, I see yuh was able to' cope with the situation. (1907; B.M. Bauer, The Lure of the Dim Trails, COHA)

30

to cope (with)

31

Why can the development of to cope (with) be taken to reflect the impact of DCS?

(i) Widening

o effect of partiality (speakers assuming perspectives/ siding/ identifying with one participant)

(ii) Narrowing cum amelioration

o intentional stance: any action is assumed to be motivated by agent’s belief that appropriate move for reaching desired goal

o utterances felt to be insufficiently informative: reinterpreted as incorporating information about intended outcome of action

32

Conclusion

o subject specific subjectivity VS. default construction of subjectivity

o default properties of subjectivity available for pragmatic inferencing in most utterance events

• available for ‘re-plenishing’ of semantic content of highly bleached items

• may have driven surprisingly similar semantic developments of experiencer verbs (e.g. to worry) & verbs of the type to cope with

o If DCS biologically constrained cognitive bias→ development of to worry etc. may have an explanation deeper than reference to the highly variable communicative needs of specific human subjects

33

Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Allen, Cynthia. 2012. Lexical functional grammar. In Bergs, Alexander; Brinton, Laurel (eds.). English historical

linguistics. Vol.2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1646-1658.Arad, Maya. 1998. VP Structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. London: UCL Dissertation.Benveniste, Emile. 1971 [1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Benveniste, Emile (ed.). Problems in general linguistics.

Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 223-230.Bouchard, Denis 1995. The Semantics of syntax. Chicago: UCP.Cole, P.; Harbert, W.; Hermon, G.; Sridhar, S. 1980. The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56(4), 719-743.Dennett, Daniel C. 1987. The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.De Smet, H.; Verstraete, J.-Ch. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3), 365-392.Dunbar, Robin. 2004. Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology 8(2), 100-110.Fischer, Olga. 2006. Syntax. In Blake, Norman (ed.). The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol.2: 1066-

1476. (4th edition). Cambridge: CUP, 207-398.Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(1), 106-143.Gelderen, Elly van. 2014. Changes in argument structure. Paper presented at ICEHL 18, Leuven.Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: loquor ergo sum. In Jarvella, Robert; Klein, Wolfgang (eds.). Speech,

place and action: studies in deixis and related topics. New York: Wiley, 101-124.Malchukov, Andrej; Siewierska, Anna. 2011. Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard M. (ed.). The Cambridge history of the English language.

Vol.1: The beginnings to 1066. (7th edition). Cambridge: CUP, 168-286. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: a reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin;

Vandelotte, Liese; Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalisation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 29-74.

Villiers, Jill de. 2007. The interface of language and Theory of Mind. Lingua 117, 1858-1878.Visser, Fredericus. 1963-1973. An historical syntax of the English grammar. Vol.I-IIIb. Leiden: Brill.

(Selected) references

34

Thank you for your attention