ALWAYS-progressives in early American English

One of the contexts of expansion of progressive forms in Late Modern English (along with others that were later equally, or even more, successful; see e.g. Fitzmaurice 2004; Smitterberg 2005; Nesselhauf 2007) is the habitual – iterative context, in which the form co-occurs with always and other markers of iterativity or continuity such as constantly, every day, etc., and often convey expressive pragmatic values such as irritation, impatience, and the like. This context is nowadays quite common, although it stands in contrast with the “progressive” core meaning. The precise conditions for its spread and constraints on its occurrence, however, are still debated (e.g. Killie 2004, Kranich 2007, 2008), and not much has been ascertained about its distribution. It is known that American English shows a higher number of contexts in which be + Ving forms are used than British English, and that the ratio of the frequency increase of this construction is also higher in Atlantic Englishes as well as in other ‘transplanted’ varieties. The same can be said about the specific verbs that accept the construction, as these, too, seem to be in greater number in other L1 varieties than in Standard British English (see e.g. Collins 2008). Whether this has any connection with the ‘subjective’ progressive referred to in the previous paragraph, however, still remains to be ascertained. The present paper will therefore explore early American English texts spanning over the century 1810-1909 (from the Corpus Of Historical American English) for occurrences of this construction, trying to verify the hypothesis that this is one of the main loci of extension of the subjective uses of the –ing finite form in Late Modern English, and that it is therefore crucial in order to account for the present remarkable frequency of the latter in transatlantic varieties. Comparison with the 20th-century part of the COHA will also be provided and discussed.One of the contexts of expansion of progressive forms in Late Modern English (along with others that were later equally, or even more, successful; see e.g. Fitzmaurice 2004; Smitterberg 2005; Nesselhauf 2007) is the habitual – iterative context, in which the form co-occurs with always and other markers of iterativity or continuity such as constantly, every day, etc., and often convey expressive pragmatic values such as irritation, impatience, and the like. This context is nowadays quite common, although it stands in contrast with the “progressive” core meaning. The precise conditions for its spread and constraints on its occurrence, however, are still debated (e.g. Killie 2004, Kranich 2007, 2008), and not much has been ascertained about its distribution. It is known that American English shows a higher number of contexts in which be + Ving forms are used than British English, and that the ratio of the frequency increase of this construction is also higher in Atlantic Englishes as well as in other ‘transplanted’ varieties. The same can be said about the specific verbs that accept the construction, as these, too, seem to be in greater number in other L1 varieties than in Standard British English (see e.g. Collins 2008). Whether this has any connection with the ‘subjective’ progressive referred to in the previous paragraph, however, still remains to be ascertained. The present paper will therefore explore early American English texts spanning over the century 1810-1909 (from the Corpus Of Historical American English) for occurrences of this construction, trying to verify the hypothesis that this is one of the main loci of extension of the subjective uses of the –ing finite form in Late Modern English, and that it is therefore crucial in order to account for the present remarkable frequency of the latter in transatlantic varieties. Comparison with the 20th-century part of the COHA will also be provided and discussed

Foreword

Rhesis. International Journal of Linguistics, Philology and Literature (ISSN 2037-4569): Linguistics and Philology, 4.1 (2013)Rhesis. International Journal of Linguistics, Philology and Literature (ISSN 2037-4569): Linguistics and Philology, 4.1 (2013

The Pragmatics of Sir Thomas Bodley

The publication of the diplomatic correspondence of Sir Thomas Bodley online (Diplomatic Correspondence of Thomas Bodley, 1585 – 1597) offers a fine opportunity to study a text-type that is partly different from either business letters or personal correspondence. These texts lend themselves to be analysed from a sociopragmatic and discourse-analytic point of view, and this will be attempted in the paper by taking a closer look at the management of conflict, the degree of strength and directness of speech acts, and the ways in which social hierarchy is expressed. Several linguistic markers will be considered, in order to ascertain which elements can be seen as typically sensitive indicators in this particular text type, and how they relate to those found in other types of correspondence from the same period, which has been widely studied. In particular, the interplay between ‘diplomatic’ indirectness (also in the modern sense) and direct reinforcement of personal bonds will be investigated; given the need to continuously express the element of personal trust, this type of correspondence seems particularly promising to analyse from this specific angle. Interesting insight can be gained by looking at the performing of specific acts or ‘moves’, for instance at the different levels of strength in directives, or at the linguistic means used to convey degrees of certainty in the reporting of information, both types of acts that figure prominently in these letters

The Diplomatic Correspondence of Thomas Bodley, 1585–1597

This is a review of The Diplomatic Correspondence of Thomas Bodley, 1585–1597

The Pragmatics of Sir Thomas Bodley

The publication of the diplomatic correspondence of Sir Thomas Bodley online (Diplomatic Correspondence of Thomas Bodley, 1585 – 1597) offers a fine opportunity to study a text-type that is partly different from either business letters or personal correspondence. These texts lend themselves to be analysed from a sociopragmatic and discourse-analytic point of view, and this will be attempted in the paper by taking a closer look at the management of conflict, the degree of strength and directness of speech acts, and the ways in which social hierarchy is expressed. Several linguistic markers will be considered, in order to ascertain which elements can be seen as typically sensitive indicators in this particular text type, and how they relate to those found in other types of correspondence from the same period, which has been widely studied. In particular, the interplay between ‘diplomatic’ indirectness (also in the modern sense) and direct reinforcement of personal bonds will be investigated; given the need to continuously express the element of personal trust, this type of correspondence seems particularly promising to analyse from this specific angle. Interesting insight can be gained by looking at the performing of specific acts or ‘moves’, for instance at the different levels of strength in directives, or at the linguistic means used to convey degrees of certainty in the reporting of information, both types of acts that figure prominently in these letters

Persuasive discourse and language planning in Ireland

Colonial language discourse typically consists of evaluations concerning the respective merits of two or more languages, and the cultures they represent. This can serve as a warrant for imposing a ‘superior’ language. Although such discourse tends to be associated with the conquest of the New World and subsequent European expansion, there is evidence that in the case of Ireland – England’s first overseas colony – an adversarial relation between English and Irish languages existed even before the Elizabethan period. Referring to English legislation, chronicles and other documents, this paper examines the norms, arguments and rhetorical strategies that were used to exert the dominance of the English language in Ireland during late-medieval and early-modern times. In the latter half of the paper, the focus will shift to attempts to create, especially from the seventeenth-century onwards, a ‘pro-Irish reversal’ that used similar arguments and rhetoric to reclaim this denigrated language. Our suggestion is that these pro- and anti-colonial language discourses anticipate those that were used later on in colonial and postcolonial environments