Gram - SEAS

42 3 Mechanisms: reanalysis and analogy
of "one form - one meaning" operates, and every "utterance" conveys an unambiguous
message. Such transparency is not found in human language. This is partly
because in real-world languages a small set of units and constructions must serve a
much larger set offunctions, owing to memory and parsing limitations. Moreover,
language is a social institution, and one of its important functions is to maintain
social networks and sustain interest in a verbal interaction. Therefore indirectness
(such as is found in politeness phenomena), metaphor, and other non-literal meanings
are an essential part of language. "One form - one meaning" would in these
circumstances be dysfunctional. For example, Do you mind not smoking in here?
can serve as a request for information, or a command to stop smoking in the guise
of an inquiry. After extensive use as an indirect command it can be felt as too
"routine," hence too close to Please stop smoking, and therefore can be substituted
in some circumstances by a lengthier paraphrase like Wo uld you mind awfu lly if
I were to ask you not to smoke in here? Part of the human ability to understand
and use language is the ability to reason from the form of what is said to the intent
of what is said, as well as from the string of sounds that occurs as input .[0 the
structure behind that input.
Logicians focused until recently on two types of reasoning: induction and deduction.
If human language were an artificial language then these logics might
suffice. However, neither of these logics accounts adequately for indirectness, expressivity,
or change. For this a third type of reasoning, "abduction," first identilied
by C. S. Peirce (1965 [193 1 )), needs to be considered. The importance of abduction
for language change has been stated particularly clearly by Andersen ( 1973). The
following is based on Andersen's main points (especially 774-86; see also Anttila
1989 [1972]: 196-8).
Ty pes of reasoning are exemplified by three propositions that constitute a
syllogism:
The Law (e.g., All men are mortal)
The Case (e.g., Socrates is a man)
The Result (e.g., Socrates is mortal)
Deductive reasoning applies a law to a case and predicts a result (e.g., All men
are mortal, Socrates is a mall, therefo re Socrates is mortal). Strictly speaking, the
conclusion asserts nothing that is not given in the premises; furthermore, if the
premises are true, then the conclusion is also. Inductive reasoning proceeds from
observed cases and results to establish a law (e.g., Socrates is a man, Socrates is
mortal, therefo re all men are mortal).
Abductive reasoning is different, although it is often confused with inductive
reasoning: "Abduction proceeds from an observed result, invokes a law, and infers
that something may be the case. E.g. given the fact that Socrates is dead, we may