A Diachronic Study on the Development of the Persian Discourse Marker “ya’ni” Based on Heine’s Pragmaticalization Framework (2013)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Seyyede Marzieyeh Abbasi ¹
• Alireza Khormaee ²
• Amirsaeid Moloodi ³

¹ PhD student in Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

² Associate Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

³ Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jlkd.2021.70622.1035

Abstract

The present research studies a process involved in the rise of the Persian discourse marker “ya’ni” (meaning that) in the framework of discourse grammar (Kaltenbock et al, 2011) and based on Heine’s approach (2013). Heine believes that the process leading to the rise of discourse markers is pragmaticalization. To him, a process called co-optation is the central mechanism involved in pragmaticalization, and he considers pragmaticalization and grammaticalization as distinct processes. Through co-optation a linguistic unit is transferred from sentence grammar to thetical grammar, acquires new semantic functions based on the complicated network of situation of discourse, and changes to a discourse marker. To carry out the present study based on Heine’s approach as its analytical framework, diachronic data in Persian were collected from the 4th to 14th Hijri centuries by choosing two typical books from each century. Then, all the occurrences of “ya’ni” in those books were manually identified and analyzed. The present diachronic study of “ya’ni” in Persian confirms Heine’s framework, and it shows a growing number of theticals as time passes. In addition, it was verified that the process which plays a role in the development of “ya’ni” is not grammaticalization, but pragmaticalization in center of which there is co-optation.

Keywords

• discourse grammar
• sentence grammar
• thetical grammar
• co-optation
• pragmaticalization of &ldquo ya&rsquo ni&rdquo

20.1001.1.20087233.1400.13.1.9.8

References

مقدم­کیا، رضا. (1383). «بعد» نقش­نمای گفتمان در زبان فارسی. نشریة نامة فرهنگستان،شماره 23، 98-81.

عموزاده، محمد و نورا، اعظم. (1393). دستوری­شدن تسلسلی عبارت یعنی از منظر دستور گفتمان. نشریة پژوهش­های زبانی، شماره1، 94-75.

داوری، شادی، قاسمی، محسن و کوکبی، بهناز. (1396). گفتمان­نماهای افشا در زبان فارسی: رویکرد دستوری­شدگی. نشریة زبان­شناسی اجتماعی، شماره 2، 16-9.

نغزگوی­ کهن، مهرداد و مشکین­فام، مهرداد. (1398). از دستوری­زدایی تا کاربردی­شدگی سیر تحوّل کلمة نقشی «پس»         ­     در فارسی. نشریة فرهنگ­نویسی (ویژه­نامة فرهنگستان)،شماره 14، 74-100.

   ­      ­    

منابع انگلیسی:

Aijmer, K. (1997). I think: An English modal particle. In Toril, S. & Jansen- Westvik, O. (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1- 47). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Andersen, H. (2007). Marqueurs discursifs propositionnels. Langue Francaise, 154, 13- 28.

Barth- Weingarten, D. & Couper- Kuhlen, E. (2002). On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In Wischer, I. & Diewald, G. (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 345- 361). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

Blakemore, D. (1988). The organization of discourse. In Newmeyer, F. (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (Vol. 4, pp. 229- 250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.               

Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brinton, L. J. (2010). The Development of I mean: Implications for the Study of Historical Pragmatics. In M. Fitzmaurice, S. & Taavitsainen, I. (Eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics (pp. 37- 80). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chang, M. H. (2008). Discourse and Grammaticalization of Contrastive Markers in Taiwanese Southern Min: A Corpus- Based Study. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (12),  2114- 49.

Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.

Degand, L. & Evers- Vermeul, J. (2015). Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 59- 85.

Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see and I mean in face- to- face conversation. Stockholm Studies in English, 69.

Erman, B. & Kotsinas, U. (1993). Pragmaticalization: The case of Ba and You know. Studier in Modern Sprakvetenskap, 10, 76- 92.

Fitzmaurice, S. (2004). Subjectivity, Intersubjectivity and the Historical Construction of Interlocutor Stance: From Stance Markers to Discourse Markers. Discourse Studies, 6 (4), 427- 48.

Frank- Job, B. (2006). A dynamic- interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer, K. (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 395- 413). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7), 931- 952.

Gunthner, S. & Mutz, K. (2004). Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, W. Himmelmann, N. & Wiemer, B. (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 77- 107). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hansen, M. M. (2008). Particles at the semantics/ pragmatics interface: Synchronic and diachronic issues. Oxford: Elsevier.

 Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In Joseph, B. & Jnda, R. (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 575- 601). Oxford: Blackwell.

Heine, B. (2013). On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51(6), 1205- 1247.

Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hunnemeyer, F. (1991b). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Heine, B. & Kaltenbock, G. (2012). The situation of discourse: Evidence from discourse markers. Unpublished Manuscript.

Heine, B., Kaltenbock, G., Kuteva, T. & Long, H. (2012). An outline of thetical grammar. In Bischoff, Sh. & Carmen J. (Eds.), Reflections on functionalism in linguistics (pp. 176- 236). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Heine, B. & Reh, M. (1984). Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Himmelmann, P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Basing, W., Himmelmann, P. & Wiemer, B. (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fingers and its components (pp. 21- 42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hopper, P. J. (ed.). (2000). Studies in descriptive and historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. (2003[1993]). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyun- Oak Kim, A. (2011). Rhetorical questions as Catalyst in grammaticalization: Deriving Korean discourse marker ketun from conditional connective. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 1023- 1041.

Kaltenbock, G., Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2011). On thetical grammar. Studies in Languages, 35(4), 848- 893.

Koops, C. & Lohmann, A. (2013). Discourse marker sequencing and grammaticalization. In Maria- Jose Lopez- Couso et al. (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics on the Move: Applications and Implications (Book of Abstracts ICAME 34, pp. 126-8).

Kroon, C. (1995). Discourse particles in Latin. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.

Lehmann, Ch. (2002). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Universitat Erfurt.

Lenker, U. (2000). Soplice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In Fischer, O., Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change. Grammaticalization in English (pp. 229- 249). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ocampo, F. (2006). Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: The evolution of claro from adjective to discourse particlein spoken Spanish. In Sagarra, N. & Toribio, A. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 308- 319). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Onodera, N. (2000). Development of demo type connectives and na elements: Two extremes of Japanese discourse markers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 27- 55.

Ostmann, J. O. (1981). ‘You Know’: A discourse- functional study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Pinto de Lima, J. (2002). Grammaticalization, subjectification and the origin of pathic markers. In Wischer, I. & Diewald, G. (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 363- 378). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schourup, L. C. (1985). Common discourse particles in English: ‘like’, ‘well’, ‘you know’. New York: Garland.

Traugott, E. (1995). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12^th International Conference on Historical linguistics, Manchester.

Waltereit, R. (2006). The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer. K. (Ed.), Approaches to discourse markers (Studies in pragmatics 1, pp. 61- 76). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Werner, Abraham. (1991). Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.