Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T04:51:39.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pragmatic sources of analogical reformation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard Coates
Richard Coates
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The topic of this discussion is analogical change of a particular sort, namely that where, pretheoretically, meaning seems to have had a role to play in determining the direction taken by the change. Analogy is an area of linguistic change of the highest theoretical interest. No analogical changes can take place without the involvement of ‘performance’ factors in general, including a perceiving human agent as one of these (cf. Vincent, 1974; Anttila, 1977), for many analogical acts illustrate the human mind in a condition that is at the same time relatively free and relatively fettered. It is free in the sense that the inferential processes used in the cases that interest us are ABDUCTIVE (cf. Andersen, 1973: 775; but contrast Mayerthaler, 1980: 126–7); that is, given some facts, a law may be invoked which allows the reasoner to infer that something MAY, not MUST, be the case, and to act upon that possibility in a creative way. The basic data in this paper include instances of similarity between lexemes, a notion which will receive the closest scrutiny. In the changes we will examine, people appear to invoke a law-like principle to the effect that there is a close relation between similarity of form and similarity of meaning. And they infer, abductively, that cases of similarity in such instances may be failed examples of sameness, and accordingly may replace the state of similarity by one of sameness (cf. Panagl, 1982: 5). The result is therefore the fruit of not always unreasonable guesswork rather than of the logical security of deduction (or induction). The mind is fettered in the sense that it appears condemned to try to make something transparent, or at least formally transparent, out of what is linguistically obscure; its activity is thus constrained by the rest of the linguistic system with which it operates. It is in the condition of an electrician who is summoned to sort out a dangling wire and connects it up to the first other dangling wire that he or she finds.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , September 1987 , pp. 319 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aitchison, J. (1981). Language change: progress or decay? London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Lg 49. 765–793.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (1985). Cratylism and the new iconicity. Linguistics Association Lecture, Spring Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Salford, 2 April 1985.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1972). Introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1977). Analogy. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, C. -J. N. (1980). Old and new views on language history and language relationships. In Lüdtke, H. (ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels. Berlin: de Gruyter. 139–181.Google Scholar
Barry, M. (1964). Traditional enumeration in the north country. Folk Life 7. 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. & Sears, D. A. (1981). Aspects of language, 3rd ed.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Bones, J. (1986). Language and Rastafari. In Sutcliffe, D. & Wong, A. (eds.), The language of the Black experience. Oxford: Blackwell. 37–51.Google Scholar
Bynon, Th. (1977). Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Coates, R. (1978). Etymologica: three mismatches with the goshawk. Neophilologus 62.131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, R. (forthcoming). The ancient and modern names of the Channel Islands: a linguistic history.Google Scholar
Coates, R. (in prep.). On the term forrepland in the customs of Bosham and other southern documents.Google Scholar
Colomina i Castanyer, J. (1985). L'Alacanti. Un estudi sobre la variació lingüística. Alicante: Institut d'Estudis ‘Juan Gil-Albert’.Google Scholar
Corominas, J. & Pascual, J. A. (1980). Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. & Fay, D. (1982). One mental lexicon, phonologically arranged: Comments on Hurford's comments. LIn 13. 107–113.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. A. & Gilligan, H. (1985). The suffixing preference: a processing explanation. Linguistics 23. 723–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodgson, J. McN. (1981). The place-names of Cheshire 5(i) and 5(ii). Nottingham: English Place-Name Society, vols. 48 and 54.Google Scholar
Ekwall, E. (1960). The concise Oxford dictionary of English place-names, 4th ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Evans, D. (forthcoming). Paradigmatic relations as guides in etymology: the cases of French tiercelet and émouchet.Google Scholar
Fay, D. & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. LIn 8. 505–20.Google Scholar
García de Diego, V. (1959). Manual de dialectología española, 2nd ed.Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica.Google Scholar
Gelling, M. (1967). English place-names derived from the compound wīchām. Medieval Archaeology 11. 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelling, M. (1978). Signposts to the past. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Gelling, M. (1984). Place-names in the landscape. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Gould, P. & White, R. (1986). Mental maps, 2nd ed.London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Guiraud, P. (1955). La sémantique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Heller, L., Humez, A. & Dror, M. (1984). The private lives of English words. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. (1986). Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskins, W. (1967). Fieldwork in local history. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Houtzager, M. E. (1935). Unconscious sound- and sense-assimilations. Amsterdam: H. J. Paris.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R. (1981). Malapropisms, left-to-right listing and lexicalism. LIn 12. 419–423.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. (1985). On the pronunciation of sacrilegious. Studia Neophilologica 57. 161–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, D. H. (1981). Lexical representations for speech production and perception. In Myers, T., Laver, J. & Anderson, J. (eds.). The cognitive representation of speech. Amsterdam: North-Holland, Advances in psycholinguistics 7. 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1963). Structural semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge Unversity Press.Google Scholar
Maclennan, M. (1925). A pronouncing and etymological dictionary of the Gaelic language. Reprinted 1979, Stornoway: Acair and Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Malone, J. L. (1969). Rules of synchronic analogy: a proposal based on evidence from three Semitic languages. FL 5. 534–559.Google Scholar
Markey, T. L. (1985). On suppletion. Diachronica 2. 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1980). Speech understanding as a psychological process. In Simon, J. C. (ed.), Spoken language generation and understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, W. (1980). Aspekte der Analogietheorie. In Lüdtke, H. (ed.), Kommunikations- theoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels. Berlin: de Gruyter. 80–130.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, H., Sanderson, S. & Widdowson, J. (1978). The lingustic atlas of England. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Padel, O. J. (1985). Cornish place-name elements. Nottingham: English Place-Name Society, vol. 55.Google Scholar
Panagl, O. (1982). Aspekte der Volksetymologie. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Pisani, V. (1960). Über Volksetymologie. Studii şi Cercetaˇri Lingvistice 11. 633–643.Google Scholar
Pokorny, J. (1959). Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I and II. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Room, A. (1986). Dictionary of true etymologies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de(1916). Cours de linguistique générate. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1971). Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press. Excerpted in Giglioli, P. P. (ed.) (1972). Language and social context. Harmondsworth: Penguin, Modern Sociology Readings. 95–135.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1979). Speech errors as evidence for a serial order mechanism in sentence production. In Cooper, W. E. & Walker, E. C. T. (eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 295–342.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. (1962). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function I and II. Psychometrika 27. 125–140, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. (1974). Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects. Psychometrika 39. 373–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, P. V. (1985, 1986). The fate of the numeral ‘4’ in Germanic. NOWELE 6. 81–104; 7·3–27; 8 (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, E. H. (1947). An introduction to linguistic science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, O. (1960). Studies in the Indo-European system of numerals. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84. 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. & Gati, I. (1978). Studies of similarity. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 81–98.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: an introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vendryes, J. (1953). Pour une étymologie statique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 49 1–19.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. B. (1974). Analogy reconsidered. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.), Historical linguistics: Proceedings of the First International Conference of Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh 1973. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 427–45.Google Scholar
Weekley, E. (1912). The romance of words. London: John Murray. (Reprinted 1949 in Murray's imprint Guild Books; reference is to this printing.)Google Scholar
Winter, W. (1969). Analogischer Sprachwandel und semantische Struktur. Folia Linguistica 3. 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar