On the Pragmatics of Subjectification: Emergence and Modalization of an Allative Future in Ancient Egyptian

1
On the Pragmatics of SubjectificationEmergence
and Modalization of an Allative Future in Ancient
Egyptian

• E. Grossman (HUJi) St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS ULg)

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
2
0. Outline of the talk Caveat

• Two parts
• Discussion of theoretical issues regarding
  grammaticalization and its relation to
  subjectification
• Illustration of the theoretical claims by a
  case-study the emergence, grammaticalization and
  modalization of a Future tense out of a verb-less
  Allative construction in Ancient Egyptian.
• Caveat

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
3
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification

• Two questions
• How functional change comes about?
• How functional change relates or correlates with
  formal change?
• Four uncontroversial observations
• Functional change precedes formal change (passim,
  see e.g. Hopper and Traugott 2003 100)
• Semantic change in grammaticalization is
  overwhelmingly regular (e.g. Bybee et al. 1994
  Givón Heine Kuteva 2002)
• Semantic change results from basic pragmatic
  mechanisms of everyday usage (e.g. Traugott
  Dasher 2001 IITSC the transfer of context to
  code apud Givón 2005)
• The main determinant of formal change is
  frequency (e.g. Bybee 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008,
  2010 Haspelmath 2008)

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
4
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification
Grammaticalization Theory

• Functional changes

Formal changes
Pragmatic
Semantic
Syntactic
Morphological
Phonological
Regular
Mechanisms
???
Text Frequency
eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
5
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification

• Questions
• How basic pragmatic mechanisms, such as
  inferencing, lead to semantic change? See the
  Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic
  Change advocated for in Traugott Dasher 2001
  5-sq. and the importance of this dimension in
  Bybee et al. 1994 esp. 285-297)
• In a nutshell, one has to distinguish
• Subject-oriented inferences
• Speaker-oriented inferences
• Ex. Sebastian is going to move to Berlin
• !!! Crucial role of the addressee !!!

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
6
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification

• The distinction between speaker-oriented and
  subject-oriented inferences
• Benveniste (1958)
• Bybee et al. (1994 176-241)
• Narrog (2010 420), who states that
  speaker-orientation is the crucial dimension
  in cross-linguistic change of modal markers.
  (see already the proposals made in Narrog 2005
  2007) and who more specifically claims that
  diachronically, modal meanings always shift in
  the direction of increased speaker-orientation.
  The increase in speaker-orientation is (...)
  essentially independent of the dimension of
  volitivity. (Narrog 2010 394).

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
7
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification

• Speaker-oriented inferences are those that lead
  to a rise in text frequency because
• They involve meanings that occur more frequently
• They lead to an increase in frequency through a
  relaxation in the selectional restrictions of
  constructions (compare with Himmelmann 2004)
• As a result of the relaxation of the selectional
  restrictions of a construction, the construction
  itself becomes compatible with new type of
  components (see e.g. Coptic completive
  construction reinterpreted as a perfect)

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
8
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification

• Coptic (completive construction reinterpreted as
  a perfect Grossman 2009 ex. 22-23)
• Ecc. 315
• na?u-ouô e?u-šôpi pe
• PRET1?3PL-finish CIRC?3PL-become\INF PRET2
• It has already been.
• NHC VI
• a?f-ouô e?f-côhm
• PST.AFF?3m.sg-finish CIRC?3MSG_make_filthy
• He has already become filthy.

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
9
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification

• This account
• provides a principled way to explain some
  phenomena related to grammaticalization, such as
  the differential semantic changes observed across
  person paradigms
• suggests a motivation for the spread of a
  construction to new types of subject and
  predicates, which is normally attributed to
  analogical extension (and left at that)

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
10
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification
Grammaticalization Theory

• Functional changes

Formal changes
Pragmatic
Semantic
Syntactic
Morphological
Phonological
Regular
Mechanisms
Subject-oriented Inf. (?) Speaker-oriented Inf.
(?)
Relaxation of Select. Restr. construction
Text Frequency
eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
11
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification

• Advantage of this approach consequences for the
  notion of subjectification
• The main advantage of this approach is in
  spelling out in an explicit fashion how
  functional change comes to be (by articulating
  the pragmatic, semantic formal dimensions), and
  in describing how it motivates formal change
• The Traugottian notion of subjectification cannot
  account for these observations in a entirely
  principled way

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
12
1. Grammaticalization Subjectification

• The functional dimension of grammaticalization
  can be better described with a fine grained
  analysis that takes into account the different
  facets of the conventionalization of
  speaker-oriented inferences
• What types of speaker-oriented inferences are
  attested? In which pragmatic environments do they
  occur?
• What selectional restrictions of the construction
  are relaxed due these contextually available
  inferences?
• Is it possible to objectify (or at least argue
  for) a raise in text frequency (with corpus-based
  quantitive approach)?
• Is it possible to show that the new meanings are
  conventionally coded by the forms, with new
  form-meaning pairs as result?

eitan.grossman_at_mail.huji.ac.il
S.Polis_at_ulg.ac.be
13
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg

• In this part of the talk
• Emergence, grammaticalization and modalization of
  a Future tense out of an Allative (or
  goal-marking) construction
• Identification of two distinct types of
  speaker-oriented inferences that lift original
  selectional restrictions of the construction and
  lead to a rise in text frequency
• Basic constructional Scheme
• iw f r sDm
• AUX subject allative infinitive
• he to hear
• he is going to hear

14
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg

• Tigre, a Semitic language spoken mostly in
  Eritrea
• fag?r ba??? ??g?l-nigis-tu
• Tomorrow Massawa all-wego\sbjv-it_is
• Tomorrow we will go to Massawa
• The main interest of this source construction
  for development of a Future tense is that, while
  it does not involve a verb of motion at all, yet
  it observes the pathways of functional change
  proposed for other Allative Futures.
• Bybee et al. (1994 268) First, it is
  important to note that simple movement does not
  evolve into future. To derive future, there must
  be an allative component, movement towards,
  either inherent in the semantics of the verb or
  explicit in the construction

15
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Selectional Restrictions Construction Selectional Restrictions Construction Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Subject Predicate Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Stage 0
16
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Selectional Restrictions Construction Selectional Restrictions Construction Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Subject Predicate Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Stage 0
Stage 1 1st pers. animintent agentiveSubject -
Urk. I, 224,4-6 (Tomb of Pepyankhheryib VIth
dyn. Meir)iw(i) r ir(.t) xft
mrr.tsnAUX(1sg) ALL do\INF
according_to desire3pl(With regard
to those who will act in accordance with what I
have said), I will act in accordance with what
they desire
17
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Selectional Restrictions Construction Selectional Restrictions Construction Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Subject Predicate Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Stage 0
Stage 1 1st pers. animintent agentiveSubject -
Stage 2 animate agentiveSubject assertion gt pred.
18
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Stage 2 mCairo 20003, l. 3-4 iwTn r
Dd m rATn () AUX2pl ALL
say\INF with mouth2pl (If you have nothing in
your hands,) you will say with your mouth
() Urk. I, 224,15 (Tomb of Pepyankhheryib VIth
dyn.out Meir) iw Hw.t-Hr r ir.t
mrr.tsn AUX Hathor ALL do\INF
desire\ptcp.ipfv3pl (With regard to any man who
shall speak,) Hathor will fulfill their desires
19
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Selectional Restrictions Construction Selectional Restrictions Construction Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Subject Predicate Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Stage 0
Stage 1 1st pers. animintent agentiveSubject -
Stage 2 animate agentiveSubject assertion gt pred.
Stage 3a animate - assertion gt pred.
20
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Stage 3a pBerlin med., rt 1,12-3 (MK) iws r
      iwr AUX3sg.f       ALL     
be_pregnant\INF She will become pregnant
21
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Selectional Restrictions Construction Selectional Restrictions Construction Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Subject Predicate Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Stage 0
Stage 1 1st pers. animintent agentiveSubject -
Stage 2 animate agentiveSubject assertion gt pred.
Stage 3a animate - assertion gt pred.
Stage 3b - - Future
22
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Stage 3b Sh.S., 119-120 (cf. GEG 332 MK) iw
     dp.t    r iy.t m Xnw AUX boat       ALL
     come\INF from home A ship will come from
home
23
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Selectional Restrictions Construction Selectional Restrictions Construction Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Subject Predicate Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Stage 0
Stage 1 1st pers. animintent agentiveSubject -
Stage 2 animate agentiveSubject assertion gt pred.
Stage 3a animate - assertion gt pred.
Stage 3b - - Future
Stage 4 - (loss of compositionality formal reduction) - (loss of compositionality formal reduction) Future
24
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Stage 4 P. Chester Beatty I, r 2,2 ( LES
38,10-11) ix pA nty iwn ø irf what ART.m.sg   
REL FUTwe ø do\INFit What will we do? (litt.
what is it that we will do it?)
25
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Selectional Restrictions Construction Selectional Restrictions Construction Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Subject Predicate Speaker-Oriented Inferences
Stage 0
Stage 1 1st pers. animintent agentiveSubject -
Stage 2 animate agentiveSubject assertion gt pred.
Stage 3a animate - assertion gt pred.
Stage 3b - - Future
Stage 4 - (loss of compositionality formal reduction) - (loss of compositionality formal reduction) Future
Stage 5 - - Futuremanip
26
2. A verb-less Allative Future in AEg
Stage 5 P. Leyde I 362, v 1-2 ( KRI II,
927,5-6) iri PtH in.tn FUT Ptah bring_back\infus
May Ptah bring us back Coptic an e-s-e-misiIN
T FUT-she--give_birth will she give
birth?' Context are you kidding? shes 90 years
old.
27
3. Conclusions

• We described two types of speaker-oriented
  inferences that were paralleled by the retraction
  of subject-oriented ones. In our case study, the
  addressee makes speaker-oriented inferences,
  considering the speaker
• as the source of assertion (Semantic intention
  gt future)
• as a manipulative source (Semantic future gt
  optative)
• As a result, the distinction between
  Subjectification and Intersubjectification is
  misleading (and the cline subjectification gt
  intersubjectification is almost certainly
  inadequate). This point was already clear in
  Benvenistes 1966 paper and it has again been
  pointed out by Narrog (2005 692)
• Other types of speaker-oriented inferences are
  obviously to be described (but number limited
  in order to account for the well-documented
  regular semantic paths in grammaticalization
  studies).