Reconsidering subjectification from the perspective of animal signalling

Nikolaus Ritt, Andreas Baumann, Eva Zehentner, Alexander Zöpfl
{"title":"Reconsidering subjectification from the perspective of animal signalling","authors":"Nikolaus Ritt, Andreas Baumann, Eva Zehentner, Alexander Zöpfl","doi":"10.1075/elt.00020.rit","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis paper discusses the view that subjectifications (i.e. semantic changes through which words come to index speakers’ evaluations or their attitudes towards a proposition) are primarily motivated by speakers’ need for self-expression (Traugott 2010). Approaching the issue from the perspective of animal signalling (Krebs & Dawkins 1984), we propose that semantic subjectifications are at least equally likely to reflect evaluations and attitudes read into utterances by listeners who attempt to read speakers’ minds. We compare speaker-based and listener-based theories with regard to their predictions, sketch ways in which they can be tested and report findings from first attempts at doing so. First, we report evidence from diachronic corpora. Second, we describe a game-theoretic model that relates listener’s interest in speaker intentions to the average degree of speaker-honesty in a population. Third, we report preliminary results of an experiment in which we tested if listeners were more likely to interpret an utterance as indexing speaker subjectivity when they perceived speakers as more powerful. We conclude that the listener-based hypothesis of subjectification is solid enough to warrant further investigation.","PeriodicalId":436656,"journal":{"name":"Tracking Language Evolution as an Interdisciplinary, Cross-Theoretical Enterprise","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tracking Language Evolution as an Interdisciplinary, Cross-Theoretical Enterprise","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00020.rit","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses the view that subjectifications (i.e. semantic changes through which words come to index speakers’ evaluations or their attitudes towards a proposition) are primarily motivated by speakers’ need for self-expression (Traugott 2010). Approaching the issue from the perspective of animal signalling (Krebs & Dawkins 1984), we propose that semantic subjectifications are at least equally likely to reflect evaluations and attitudes read into utterances by listeners who attempt to read speakers’ minds. We compare speaker-based and listener-based theories with regard to their predictions, sketch ways in which they can be tested and report findings from first attempts at doing so. First, we report evidence from diachronic corpora. Second, we describe a game-theoretic model that relates listener’s interest in speaker intentions to the average degree of speaker-honesty in a population. Third, we report preliminary results of an experiment in which we tested if listeners were more likely to interpret an utterance as indexing speaker subjectivity when they perceived speakers as more powerful. We conclude that the listener-based hypothesis of subjectification is solid enough to warrant further investigation.
从动物信号的角度重新思考主体化
本文讨论了主体化(即语义学上的变化,通过语词来索引说话人的评价或他们对一个命题的态度)主要是由说话人自我表达的需要所驱动的观点(Traugott 2010)。从动物信号传导的角度来看这个问题(克雷布斯和道金斯1984),我们提出,语义主体化至少同样有可能反映出试图读懂说话者思想的听者从话语中读出的评价和态度。我们比较了以说者为基础的理论和以听者为基础的理论的预测,概述了它们可以被测试的方法,并报告了第一次尝试的结果。首先,我们报告了历时语料库的证据。其次,我们描述了一个博弈论模型,该模型将听众对说话人意图的兴趣与人群中说话人的平均诚实程度联系起来。第三,我们报告了一个实验的初步结果,在这个实验中,我们测试了当听众认为说话者更强大时,他们是否更有可能将话语解释为说话者主观性的索引。我们的结论是,以听众为基础的主体化假设是坚实的,足以保证进一步的调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信