The history of LIKE

4.1.1 Grammaticalization

The first question that comes to mind is how and from which forms vernacular uses of LIKE developed. One possible explanation is related to the processes of grammaticalization, i.e. “[t]he process whereby lexical items take on certain grammatical functions in certain linguistic environments […].

Grammaticalization also refers to the process through which an already grammatical item takes over new or additional grammatical functions” (Golato

2000:33). In other words, “[g]rammaticalization is a process of gradual change, and its products may have different degrees of grammaticality” (Lehmann 1982:13). Hence, the process is unidirectional proceeding from lexical to grammatical. Nonetheless, there are a significant number of cases contradicting the unidirectionality hypothesis, but the number of exceptions is substantially lower than that which conforms to the common pattern (Heine 2002:97; Newmeyer 1998).

Although this concept is extremely powerful with respect to a number of systematic changes we observe when analyzing the history of languages, it is questionable whether this concept is adequate to account for the development not of grammatical features, but pragmatically functional forms (cf. Auer &

Günthner 2005; Wischer & Diewald 2002). Indeed, the validity of theories of grammaticalization with respect to pragmatic markers has recently led to several publications addressing this very issue, i.e. differences and similarities between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization (cf. Brinton 1996;

Günthner and Mutz 2004; Hopper & Traugott 1993; Traugott 1995, 1999;

Traugott & Heine 1991). These studies focus specifically on whether the diachronic development of pragmatic markers is best ascribed to pathways similar to the traditional notion of grammaticalization, or whether their development constitutes a somewhat different process, i.e. pragmaticalization (Diewald 2011:374).

A first step towards accounting for pragmatic functions within a framework of grammaticalization is to expand the definition to encompass “the degree of grammatical function a linguistic item has on a scale between purely lexical and purely grammatical meaning. This entails both a diachronic and a synchronic perspective” (Wischer & Diewald 2002:ix). Taking Wischer and Diewald’s position, grammaticalization is not limited to processes in diachrony as expressed in Givón’s statement that (1971:413) “[t]oday’s morphology is yesterday’s syntax”, but it also refers to a continuum and relation between lexical and grammatical function. Hence, we have two distinct and in part contradictory concepts of grammaticalization (Günthner & Mutz 2004:97‐98).

This type of change which leads to discourse and pragmatic markers, to elements which organize, structure, and contextualize discourse with respect to discourse‐pragmatic concerns and not with respect to sentence‐

grammatical concerns (e.g., congruence, binding), contradicts classical grammaticalization. (Günthner and Mutz 2004:98)

This type of change, which leads to the development of discourse‐pragmatic elements and not to grammatical elements, “contradicts classical grammaticalization” (Lehmann 1982, 1991; Günthner & Mutz 2004:97). To allow differentiation between these two more or less separate concepts, alternative terminologies for the latter type of change have been introduced, e.g. degrammaticalization, lexicalization, and pragmaticalization (Günthner &

Mutz 2004:97). In contrast to Günthner & Mutz (2004), however, I will not differentiate between these two concepts, but treat pragmaticalization as a subtype of grammaticalization which thus serves as an umbrella concept.

Indeed, Diewald (2011:384) asserts that

pragmaticalization is a specific instance of grammaticalization which shows the crucial features of grammaticalization processes and is only distinguished from other grammaticalization processes by the functional domain it leads to and by some concomitant structural features (e.g., low degree of syntactic integration). As pragmaticalization (understood in these terms) is one instance of grammaticalization among many others, there is no reason to treat it on par with grammaticalization, i.e., on the same hierarchical level, in a classification of types of language change” (2011:384).

Concerning the grammaticalization of discourse markers, Traugott (1995;

1999) proposed that the pathways involved are not arbitrary, but share several distinctive features. For example, Traugott (1999) observes that the vast majority of discourse markers develop out of adverbs and conjunctions, thereby going through distinct phases. In a first step, the elements undergoing this process become increasingly decategorized into less central grammatical categories, i.e. discourse or cohesion markers (Günthner and Mutz 2004:84).

The next stage is marked by an increase in subjectification and pragmatic

function: “meaning tends to become increasingly situated in the speaker’s subjective belief‐state/attitude toward the situation (Traugott & König 1991:205). The direction of change follows a trajectory from textual or referential to an interpersonal or metatextual meaning.

Another aspect characteristic of such processes is a broadening of scope from sentential to extra‐sentential. On the one hand, this can encompasses an increase in scope from connecting clauses to indicating their relation with each other. On the other, it refers to an increase in scope from a single inner‐clausal constituent such as a single phrase to larger constructions and subsequently clauses and sentences. Finally, while pragmatic or discourse markers profit from semantic bleaching as the resulting vagueness allows these elements to acquire new functions and fill formerly restricted positions, the initial meaning still resonates in these new uses. In the case of LIKE, this semantic bleaching is reminiscent of the similarity relation expressed by the comparative preposition which is still present – though to a lesser degree – in its so‐called core meaning. According to Schourup (1982, 1985), the core meaning of vernacular uses of LIKE is to express a “possible unspecified minor nonequivalence of what is said and what is meant” (Schourup 1982:31). Thus, LIKE informs the listener about a similarity and non‐identity between the actual and the intended utterance.

This schematic explanation does not provide an explanation of why discourse markers develop in the first place. A plausible hypothesis is given by Heine (2002:85‐86), who redefines processes of grammaticalization in terms of semantic change (Heine 2002:84). To account for semantic changes within a theory of grammaticalization, Heine (2002) introduces a four‐stage model of grammaticalization which describes the process by which a form‐meaning pair acquires an additional new meaning. More specifically, Heine’s (2002) model depicts the conditions for re‐analysis by which the meaning and function of like changed into the present‐day form LIKE. The basic idea is that the initial form or construction is used in a specific context, i.e. in bridging contexts, which allows for or “gives rise to an inference in favor of a new meaning” (Heine 2002.

86). This stage is crucial, as the new context triggers a reanalysis of the element in question. It is this re‐analysis of the traditional form in this specific context which gives rise to the new semantic meanings or, as will be argued subsequently, pragmatic function. In a third stage, the form is used in a context which is compatible with the newly acquired, but not with the traditional meaning. The last stage of the process consists of conventionalization, i.e. the new “meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it; it may be used in new contexts” (Heine 2002:86). Heine’s model differs from a related precursor introduced by Diewald (1999), concentrating particularly on semantic change (Diewald 2002:117).

4.1.2 The grammaticalization of LIKE

Throughout the past two decades, the grammaticalization of LIKE has attracted the attention of researchers, leading to various publications on this topic. Most scholars agree that the discourse marker LIKE originated from the comparative preposition which in the course of time lost lexical meaning. The resulting lexically bleached variants exhibit an increase in syntactical flexibility; as Andersen puts it: “It is obvious that the word like is undergoing a process of grammaticalization from a lexical item to a particle which has greater syntactic freedom and is to some degree semantically reduced” (1997:40). The grammaticalization of LIKE is, nevertheless, presumed to be ongoing, as LIKE continues to intrude into formerly constrained syntactical environments (D’Arcy 2005). The assertion that this grammaticalization process is ongoing is supported by the multifunctionality of LIKE, which is commonly regarded as indicative of ongoing grammaticalization (cf. Romaine & Lange 1991;

Buchstaller 2001).

One of the first studies on the grammaticalization of LIKE was published by Meehan (1991), who provided a historical account not only of the development of the discourse marker LIKE, but of the historical development of the general linguistic form like. Meehan’s (1991) model of LIKE grammaticalization is

strictly linear and unidirectional in nature despite allowing for various forms of like occurring in synchrony.

Although not strictly limited to the discourse marker LIKE, Meehan’s (1991) approach resulted in the introduction of the notion of a ‘core‐meaning’, often paraphrased as ‘similar to’ meaning which is more or less salient in most forms of like including occurrences of LIKE as an adjective, adverb, conjunction, discourse marker, quotative, and noun. This core meaning dates back as early as the 14^th century and functions to express a similarity relation by facilitating comparison. A closely related interpretation of LIKE’s core meaning expresses approximation, which can be paraphrased as meaning ‘similar to’ and commonly occurs in the context of quantity phrases.

The more specific type, which developed from the core meaning of LIKE and which represents a later stage of the grammaticalization process, is its use as a conjunction. This form of like can be paraphrased as meaning ‘as if’. It differs from the approximating function in that it has broader scope, and can take entire clauses, while comparative and approximating like predominately introduce post‐verbal noun phrases (Meehan 1991:40).

A more recent type of like, which originated in the 19^th century and which can be paraphrased with ‘for example’ and replaced by ‘such as’, is characterized by a further broadening of scope, as it can take either NPs, PPs, or entire clause as its complements “indicating that the meaning is becoming more generalized” (Meehan 1991:43). In addition, the information within the scope of this form tends to be new and focus the listener’s attention. In contrast to discourse marker LIKE, this form cannot be removed without making the sentences ungrammatical, and thus, still has enough lexical content not be considered “simply a marker of new information” (Meehan 1991:43).

While Meehan (1991) proposed that LIKE originated from the comparative preposition and follows a sequential channel, Romaine & Lange (1991) proposed a somewhat similar grammaticalization path for LIKE based on Traugott’s (1982) model. Although their model focuses on the syntactical

development, Romaine & Lange also include basic pragmatic and semantic aspects, such as a basic core meaning of LIKE equivalent to expressing approximation, comparison, or similarity. Romaine & Lange’s (1991) consider LIKE to have developed diachronically from a comparative preposition, to a conjunction, to a discourse marker, and to a quotative complement. In contrast to Meehan’s model, however, Romaine & Lange’s recategorization model is not strictly sequential, but rather branching, as a “linear model of grammaticalization is inadequate to account for these developments [the multifunctionality of LIKE in synchrony]” (Romaine & Lange 1991:262).

According to Romaine and Lange (1991), LIKE derives from the comparative preposition which takes a nominal complement. During an intermediate step, the scope of like widens from nominal to a sentential complement when like begins functioning as a conjunction. Only then is like reanalyzed as a “discourse marker with syntactic detachability and mobility” (Brinton & Traugott 2005:23).

Figure 6: Grammaticalization path for like (Romaine & Lange 1991:261)

A more recent model introduced by Buchstaller (2001) and elaborated on in Fleischman and Yaguello (2004) is based on Lakoff’s (1987) radial structure model. The need for modification derives from the fact that the grammaticalization channel as proposed by Traugott and Heine (1991) fails to show how “the synchronically co‐existing meanings overlap and reinforce each other” (Buchstaller 2001:31). Buchstaller’s (2001) model links interrelated semantic‐pragmatic pathways, hence, enabling a more systematic account of

LIKE’s multifunctionality which is portrayed as a network rather than a sequential or branching channel:

The links between the synchronically co‐occurring and often overlapping uses of like are metaphorical and metonymical extensions from one common comparative/approximative core and conversationalizations of conversational implicatures. They extended to a network of relations. The diverse functions that like has assumed synchronically are motivated by this model – they cannot be predicted but they are explained. (Buchstaller 2001:33)

Similar to those previously depicted, Buchstaller’s model also includes and heavily depends on the notion of an underlying common core meaning which

“is very closely related to its approximative semantics” (Buchstaller 2001:32) and is assumed to be comparative/approximative in nature. On theoretical grounds based on Haiman (1989), Buchstaller (2001:32) argues that, as comparisons highlight those elements which are compared, the link between focusing and comparison is salient and thereby links the comparative core meaning of LIKE to its focusing function.

This does not, however, answer the question of how focusing can give rise to either LIKE’s occurrence as an epistemic hedge or to pragmatic hedging. To address this issue, Buchstaller (2001) argues that by signaling looseness of fit between two compared items, on a propositional level LIKE can be interpreted as an epistemic hedge. In support for her argument, Buchstaller notes that “the path from comparison to a hedge of epistemic uncertainty seems to be a well‐

trodden one cross‐linguistically” (Buchstaller 2001:32). LIKE’s pragmatic function is derived from the epistemic hedge as a face‐saving device, which can be reinterpreted as a pragmatic hedge when it is “transferred to an interpersonal, affective level” (Buchstaller 2001:32).

LIKE is used as a filler most often when formulating problems arise (Buchstaller 2001:32; Siegel 2002) and can thus be accounted for in a psycholinguistic framework. Its filling function may have originated as an

extension of its pragmatic hedging function (Buchstaller 2001:32).

Buchstaller’s fundamental argument is that while the semantics of LIKE – the comparative ‘similar to’ sense – make it an ideal filling item, it also “works on the interpersonal level, as a floor‐holding device, and as a signal of production problems” (Buchstaller 2001:32).

The link between the focusing and the quotative function of LIKE, on the other hand, is “explained […] by the fact that quotations are very often the most focused part of an utterance as they display immediacy and interpersonal involvement” (Buchstaller 2001:32). In addition, quotative LIKE commonly does not introduce actual utterances, but approximations, i.e. utterances which are not exact replications of utterances, but serve to illustrate what could have been uttered in the respective situation. The comparative core of the quotative LIKE allows for its classification “as a hedge both on the referential and on the interpersonal level, as the speaker retains a reduced responsibility with respect to what was said and how” (Buchstaller 2001:33).

Buchstaller’s model explains LIKE’s factual multifunctionality in synchrony as well as its diachronic development in terms of metonymical and metaphorical extensions of its comparative/approximating core meaning without limiting itself to a “clear‐cut linear grammaticalisation path, such as the ones postulated by Traugott and Heine (1991)” (Buchstaller 2001:33).

Further evidence for her proposed model is drawn from cross‐linguistic data which indicate a general link between the core meaning of comparison and its derived functions such as focusing or hedging, especially as items from similar semantic source‐domains follow parallel semantic‐pragmatic paths of development in unrelated languages such as English and Thai (Buchstaller 2001:33).

The latest model accounting for the development of LIKE has been proposed by D’Arcy (2005:5), who offers a more refined version of the unidirectional model introduced by Romaine and Lange (1991) and

theoretically grounded in the framework offered by Traugott (1995) and Brinton (1996).

Figure 7: Grammaticalization path of like as proposed by D’Arcy (2005:218‐219)

D’Arcy (2005:51‐73) certainly provides a compelling analysis of the discourse‐pragmatic processes accompanying the grammaticalization of LIKE, such as subjectification and a shift from textual to interpersonal meaning;

hence, D’Arcy (2005) – similar to Traugott & König (1991) and Traugott (1995) – consoders grammaticalization to be a process of unidirectional pragmatic strengthening. According to this view, the cline or grammaticalization channel of LIKE proceeds from “non‐pragmatic (propositional) to pragmatic (i.e.

textual/metalinguistic, subjective/interpersonal) meaning” (Brinton 2000:154).

D’Arcy (2005) reasonably assumes that the grammaticalization pathway of LIKE starts at the comparative preposition like or the conjunction like, which is best glossed as ‘as if’. Subsequently, the clause‐marginal sentence adverb emerged which then developed into the discourse marker LIKE. Clause‐medial LIKE is, according to D’Arcy (2005:218), a later development. While Traugott (1995) and Brinton (1996) offer analyses for the grammaticalization of discourse markers in general, their models are problematic when they applied to LIKE. For example, in applying Traugott’s (1995) model, D’Arcy (2005) makes a very compelling argument for a grammaticalization path of LIKE, beginning with the comparative preposition, to sentence adverb, to discourse marker, to discourse particle. Nonetheless, D’Arcy (2005:69) admits that she has “no straightforward explanation for this positional shift”, suggesting that equivalent trajectories are attested to for similar forms such as conjunctions (sentence final but and sentence final though) and discourse markers (indeed, besides) (cf. Traugott 1995).

With respect to semantics, several authors propose a direct link between the similarity relation expressed by the comparative preposition and the hedging function of clause‐medial LIKE (Buchstaller 2001:23‐24; Romaine &

Lange 1991:260‐261). Finally, the change from comparative forms, which establish similarity relations, to hedging devices is by no means unexpected – in fact, similar developments are attested to in several languages (Fleischman

& Yaguello 2004; Meyerhoff & Niedzielski 1998; Sankoff et al. 1997).

4.1.3 Interim synopsis

This part of the chapter has presented and briefly discussed the concepts of grammaticalization and defined pragmaticalization as one of its subordinate processes. In addition, it has provided the most prominent theories of LIKE’s grammaticalization. The most common theory with respect to the grammaticalization of LIKE proposes that LIKE developed from the comparative preposition (cf. D’Arcy 2005; Meehan 1991; Romaine & Lange 1991).

The following chapter will briefly recapitulate LIKE’s diachronic development and discuss the issue of whether it has grammaticalized in parallel in various locations simultaneously or whether, when, and how it has spread from one or more source varieties to other target varieties. Subsequently, this chapter will present previous research on the attitudes associated with LIKE and previous claims about its syntactic positioning.