1887
Volume 29 Number 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper sets forth a theoretical framework in relation to metarepresentation and evidentiality in Spanish, supported by an empirical analysis of tense/mood contrast expressions. More specifically, we describe how metarepresentational and evidential content are expressed and interpreted in if‐conditional and although-concessive clauses. We also report original experimental data from a written, multiple choice interpretation task in L2 Spanish; and from an L1 task in Spanish with a set of conditional and concessive utterances in which indicative and subjunctive moods alternate. Our global results show that the ability to efficiently integrate linguistic and non‐linguistic cues is particularly costly for non‐native speakers. Yet native speakers also reveal, to a different degree, effects suggestive of processing difficulties related to syntax/discourse interface.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.29.03ahe
2015-12-30
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahern, Aoife
    2004El subjuntivo: significado e inferencia. Un análisis basada en la teoría de la relevancia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Madrid: UNED.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2006 “Spanish mood, propositional attitudes and metarepresentation.” InWhere Semantics Meets Pragmatics: the Michigan State University Papers, ed. by Ken Turner and Klaus von Heusinger , 445–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahern, Aoife , Amenós-Pons, José and Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro
    2014 “Interfaces in the interpretation of mood alternation in L2 Spanish: Morpho-phonology, semantics and pragmatics.” EUROSLA Yearbook2014: 173–200. doi: 10.1075/eurosla.14.07ahe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.14.07ahe [Google Scholar]
  4. . Forthcoming. “Mood interpretation in Spanish: towards an encompassing view of L1 and L2 interface variability.” InThe Acquisition of Romance languages ed. by Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes , María Juan Garau and Pilar Larrañaga . Berlin – New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Amenós-Pons, José
    2015 “Spanish ‘Imperfecto’ vs. French ‘Imparfait’ in Hypothetical Clauses: A Procedural Account.” Cahiers Chronos27: 243–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Belletti, Andrea , Elisa Bennati and Antonella Sorace
    2007 “Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: evidence from near-native Italian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory2: 657–689. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9026‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9026-9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bott, Oliver
    2010The Processing of Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.162
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.162 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bres, Jacques
    2005L’imparfait dit narratif. Paris: CNRS Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, Noam
    1959 “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour.” Language35: 26–58. doi: 10.2307/411334
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411334 [Google Scholar]
  11. 1965Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. De Saussure, Louis and Bertrand Sthioul
    1999 “L’imparfaif narratif : point de vue (et images du monde).” Cahiers de Praxématique32: 167–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2005 “Imparfait et enrichissement pragmatique.” Cahiers Chronos14: 103–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Saussure, Louis
    2003Temps et pertinence. Éléments de pragmatique cognitive du temps. Bruxelles: De Boeck – Duculot.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2013 “Perspectival Interpretation of Tenses.” InTime, Language, Cognition and Reality, ed. by Kasia M. Jaszcolt and Louis de Saussure , 46–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589876.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589876.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  16. De Swart, Henriette
    1998 “Aspect shift and coercion.” Natural language and linguistic theory16: 347–385. doi: 10.1023/A:1005916004600
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005916004600 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000 “Tense, aspect and coercion in a cross-linguistic perspective.” InProceedings of the Berkeley Formal Grammar conference University of California. Berkeley, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King . CSLI Publications.web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/5/bfg00/bfg00deswart.pdf (September 2015)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Egg, M
    2005Flexible Semantics for Reinterpretation Phenomena. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria and Manuel Leonetti
    2003 “On the quotative readings of Spanish Imperfecto.” Cuadernos de LingüísticaX: 135–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2000 “Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental.” InCien años de investigación semántica: De Michel Bréal a la actualidad, vol. 1, ed. by Marcos Martínez , et al. , 363–378. Madrid: Coord. Clásicas.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2011 “On the Rigidity of Procedural Meaning.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal , Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds.), 81–103. Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/9780857240941
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780857240941 [Google Scholar]
  22. Escandell, Victoria , Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern
    (eds.) 2011Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/9780857240941
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780857240941 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gili Gaya, Samuel
    1943Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Biblograf.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ifantidou, Elly
    2001Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, George
    1974 “Dialogues with… George Lakoff.” InDiscussing language, ed. by Herman Parrett , 151–178. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Leonetti, Manuel
    2004 “Por qué el imperfecto es anafórico.” InEl pretérito imperfecto, ed. by Luis García Fernández and Bruno Camus Bergareche , 481–510. Madrid: Gredos.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Moeschler, Jacques
    1994 “Anaphore et déixis temporelles. Sémantique et pragmatique de la référence temporelle.” InLangage et pertinence. Référence temporelle, anaphore, connecteurs et métaphore, ed. by Jacques Moeschler , et al. , 39–105. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1998 “Pragmatique de la référence temporelle.” InLe temps des événements, ed. by Jacques Moeschler , 157–180. Paris: Kimé.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2002 “Pragmatics and linguistic encoding. Evidence from the conceptual/procedural distinction.”Unpublished manuscript. www.unige.ch/lettres/linguistique/moeschler (January 2010).
  30. Moeschler Jacques , Cristina Grisotet and Bruno Cartoni
    2012 “Jusqu’où les temps verbaux sont-ils procéduraux?” Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française30: 119–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Montrul, Silvina and Roumyana Slabakova
    2002 “On aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish.” InBUCLD 26 Proceedings, ed. by Barbora Skarabela , et al. (eds.), 631–42. Somerville: MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2003 “Competence similarities between natives and near-native speakers: An investigation of the Preterit/Imperfect contrast in Spanish.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition25: 351–398. doi: 10.1017/S0272263103000159
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000159 [Google Scholar]
  33. Nicolle, Steve
    1997 “A Relevance-theoretic account of be going to.” Journal of Linguistics33: 355–377. doi: 10.1017/S0022226797006567
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226797006567 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1998 “A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization.” Cognitive Linguistics9 (1): 1–35. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Olmos, Susana and Aoife Ahern
    2009 “Contrast and propositional attitude. A relevance-theoretic analysis of contrast connectives in Spanish and English.” Lingua119 (1): 51–66. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Paradis, Michel
    2001/2009 “Cerebral division of labour in verbal communication.” InCognition and Pragmatics, ed. by Dominiek Sandra , Jan-Ola Östman and Jeff Verschueren , 53–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hoph.3.04par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.3.04par [Google Scholar]
  37. Smith, Neil
    1990 “Observations on the pragmatics of tense.” University College London Working Papers in Linguistics2: 82–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sorace, Antonella and Francesca Filiaci
    2006 “Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian.” Second Language Research22: 339–368. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa [Google Scholar]
  39. Sorace, Antonella
    2011 “Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism1: 1–33. doi: 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperber, Danand and Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sthioul, Bertrand
    1998 Temps verbaux et point de vue. InLe temps des événements, ed. by Jacques Moeschler , 197–220. Paris: Kimé.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria and Antonella Sorace
    2006 “Differentiating Interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena.” InProceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. by David Bamman , Tatiana Magnitskaia , and Colleen Zaller , 653–664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Vetters, Carl and Walter De Mulder
    2000 “Passé simple et imparfait: contenus conceptual et procédural.” Cahiers Chronos6: 13–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vetters, Carl
    2003 “L’aspect global: un effet secondaire d’un contenu procédural?” Cahiers Chronos11: 113–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Vicente, Begoña
    2010 “The role of pragmatic inferencing in compositional semantics.” InExplicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. by Esther Romero and Belén Soria , 58–74. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. White, Lydia
    2009 “Grammatical Theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge.” InHandbook of Second Language Acquisition, ed. by William Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia , 49–67. Bingley: Emerald.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
    1993 “Linguistic form and Relevance.” Lingua90: 1–25. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.29.03ahe
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): metarepresentations , mood , SLA , Spanish and tense
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error