16 5 2 1 (globalization) (objectivization) Traugott (unidirectionality) (subjectivity) (intersubjectivity) (objectivity) Traugott & Dasher (2000) If the speaker s point of view is pervasive, can there be speaker-neutral or objective language? Objective language has often been associated with active, declarative assertions in which the speaker s view-point is not explicitly coded. Stereotypically in rhetorical traditions it has been associated with the passive (where the agent of scientific experiment or authorship is demoted into a by-phrase or even effaced, i.e. is zero). Scientific writing has come since the seventeenth century to be associated with nominalizations, passives, and other syntactic devices that objectivize the task of running experiments and interpreting them. An eighteenth century idea was that classic prose is clear, exact, truth-oriented, with and invisible writer (Thomas and Turner 1994). In the logical, philosophical and computational traditions that have not only influenced rhetoric but also underlie much of linguistic work on semantics, objectivity has been linked to truth and information structure. Choices along the objective-subjective continuum are also often correlatable with social role, e.g. positions of authority (Macaulay 1995). In Euro-American traditions, those who wish to exert or draw attention to their authority tend to do so by use of objective language, whereas those who either are not empowered or who do not wish to draw attention to their power, tend to use more subjective language. But this is not true in all societies. Rather, representation of the nature and status of the source 1
of one s information (hearsay, personal experience, traditional lore), or epistemological stance may be expected of all speakers. This is especially true when a language has grammaticalized evidentials, or markers of information source, as in the case of Quechua and many other languages (see e.g. Chafe and Nichols 1986, Mushin 1998). (Traugott and Dasher 2002: 1.2.4) (passive) (nominalization) 2 (1991) (1992) Kinsui(1997) 2.1 (1) a. b. a b a 8 10 (4) (3) ( 1991) (2) ( ) ( ) ( 804) (3) ( 23 ) (4) ( 158 211 ) (1b) (5) ( 220 291 ) 2
(6) ( p.32) (7) ( ) ( ) ( 9 (1981) ) (5) (6 7) (8) > > (9) > (8) (9) (1a) > (1b) (8) 1 2.2 (10) ( 1970) (11) ( 1991) (12) ( 1986 9 17 ) (1930) 2 1 (1991) 2 (11 12) 3
(13) ( 1930:160 161) 2.3 (1764 71) 8 (1771) (1760-1806) door 4
(14) a. 1 3 (1856) b. 2 3 (1856) c. 1 4 (1857) door door ( 3 1856 ) (15) a. Art.95.The nominative case denotes the agent; as, Mary loves her mother; the earth is round. What is meant by the agent? 9 b. 26 3 1870 (16) 14 1881 (17) 20 1887 5
(18) ( 89 27 1894 ) (19) ( 200 36 1903 ) (20) ( 44 1911 ) 20 (21) ( 7 1912 ) (22) ( 5 1916 ) 2.4 3 (23)(24) 6
(23) a. b. (24) a. b. (23a)(24a) (23b)(24b) 3.1 (25) 1007 (26) 1883 (27) 18 (28) 1790 (29) (30) (31) ( 1986 9 5 ) (32) 1986 9 1 30 63 42 21 7
3.2 5 1. (33) a. b. * cf. 2. (34) a. b. (35) a. b. 3. (36) a. b. 4. (37) a. b. (38) a. b. (39) a. (?) b. (40) a.? b. 8
5. 5.1 (41) a. b. 5.2 (42) a. b. 5.1 5.2 5.3 (43) a. b. * (44) a. b. (?) (45) a. b. (?) 5.4 (46) a. b. 5.4 ( 1967) 3.3 9
(47) 1703 (1999) (48) you can not understand what pleasure a vegitable has in growing. (NEW NATIONAL FOURTH READER, 30 19 1886 ) a 21 1888 b 33 1900 c ( 35 1902 [ ] ] (49) 34 1901 (50) 41 1908 3.4 10
4 (1991) 164, 1 14. (1992) ( ) pp. 547 562,. Kinsui, Satoshi (1997) The influence of translation on the historical development of the Japanese passive construction, Journal of pragmatics 28, 759 779, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. (2003) 32-11, 38 44. (2003) 32-11, pp. 54 60. (1991). (1987). (1930) (1977 ). (1967) 3 3, 1 50. (1999). Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher (2002) Regularity in Semantic Change, Cambridge University Press. 11