Volume 7, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2210-2116
  • E-ISSN: 2210-2124
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This article focuses on the diachronic development of English and Spanish ‘turn out’ mirative constructions. Having undergone processes of semantic generalization over time, both verbs express evidential and, most prominently, mirative nuances in the present-day languages. This study explores the mechanisms that condition the evolution of and from their original meanings as lexical resultative and change-of-state verbs towards their eventual subjectification and grammaticalization as predicates conveying evidential and mirative senses. The present-day mirative constructions take - and infinitival complement clauses in both languages. The analysis suggested here shows that both verbs exhibit diverging, though closely related, paths and degrees of grammaticalization. Moreover, this study delves into the further development of these predicates as parenthetical expressions. While English parenthetical has already been grammaticalized, Spanish may be on its way to becoming a grammaticalized parenthetical.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. CDE: Corpus del español
    CDE: Corpus del español 2002–2016 Compiled by Mark Davies . Available online atwww.corpusdelespanol.org.
  2. CLMET3.0: The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, v. 3.0.
    CLMET3.0: The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, v. 3.0. Compiled by Hendrik De Smet , Hans-Jürgen Diller , & Jukka Tyrkkö . Available online athttps://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/.
  3. COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English
    COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English 2008–2016 Compiled by Mark Davies . Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca/.
  4. COHA: Corpus of Historical American English
    COHA: Corpus of Historical American English 2010–2016 Compiled by Mark Davies . Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coha/.
  5. CORDE: Corpus diacrónico del español
    CORDE: Corpus diacrónico del español . Real Academia Española. Available online atcorpus.rae.es/cordenet.html.
  6. CORPES: Corpus del español del siglo XXI
    CORPES: Corpus del español del siglo XXI . Real Academia Española. Available online atweb.frl.es/CORPES.
  7. CREA: Corpus de referencia del español actual
    CREA: Corpus de referencia del español actual . Real Academia Española. Available online atcorpus.rae.es/creanet.html.
  8. EEBOCorp1.0: Early English Books Online Corpus
    EEBOCorp1.0: Early English Books Online Corpus , 1.0.2013 compiled by Peter Petré . Available online athttps://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/416330.
  9. OED: Oxford English Dictionary Online
    OED: Oxford English Dictionary Online . Oxford University Press. Available online atwww.oed.com.
  10. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2012 The Essence of Mirativity. Linguistic Typology16:3.435–485. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2014 The Grammar of Knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. The Grammar of Knowledge: A cross-linguistic typologyed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon , 1–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2015 Evidentials: Their Links with Other Grammatical Categories. Linguistic Typology19:2.239–77. doi: 10.1515/lingty‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bermúdez, Fernando
    2005Evidencialidad: La codificación lingüística del punto de vista. Stockholm: Stockholm University PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder
    2007 Complement-Taking Predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language31:3.569–606. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy [Google Scholar]
  16. Brinton, Laurel
    2008The Comment Clause in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brovetto, Claudia
    2002 Spanish Clauses Without Complementizer. Current Issues in Romance languages: Selected papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ann Arbor, 8–11 April 1999ed. by Teresa Satterfield , Christina Tortora , & Diana Cresti , 33–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.220.04bro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.220.04bro [Google Scholar]
  18. Chafe, Wallace
    1986 Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemologyed. by Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols , 261–272. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cornillie, Bert
    2007Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi)auxiliaries: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2008 On the Grammaticalization and (Inter)subjectivity of Evidential (Semi)auxiliaries in Spanish. Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalizationed. by Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso , 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.77.05cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.77.05cor [Google Scholar]
  21. De Smet, Hendrik
    2009 Analyzing Reanalysis. Lingua119:11.1728–1755. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2010 Grammatical Interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth . Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalizationed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale , 75–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.90.06des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.06des [Google Scholar]
  23. Dehé, Nicole & Yordanka Kavalova
    eds. 2007Parentheticals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.106
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106 [Google Scholar]
  24. DeLancey, Scott
    1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology1.33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2001 The Mirative and Evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics33:3.369–382. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2012 Still Mirative After All These Years. Linguistic Typology16:3.529–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
    eds. 2010aEvidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110241037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  28. eds. 2010bLinguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110223972
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fischer, Olga
    2015 The Influence of the Grammatical System and Analogy in Processes of Language Change: The case of the auxiliation of have to once again. Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle Englished. by Fabienne Toupin & Brian Lowrey , 120–150. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gentens, Caroline , Ditte Kimps , Kristin Davidse , Gilles Jacobs , An Van Linden , & Lieselotte Brems
    2016 Mirativity and Rhetorical Structure. Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituentsed. by Gunther Kaltenböck , Evelien Keizer , & Arne Lohmann , 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.178.05gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.05gen [Google Scholar]
  31. Gipper, Sonja
    2014 From Inferential to Mirative: An interaction-based account of an emerging semantic extension. Usage-Based Approaches to Language Changeed. by Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden , 83–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.69.04gip
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.04gip [Google Scholar]
  32. Gisborne, Nikolas & Jasper Holmes
    2007 A History of English Evidential Verbs of Appearance. English Language and Linguistics11:1.1–29. doi: 10.1017/S1360674306002097
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306002097 [Google Scholar]
  33. González Fernández, M. Jesús & Ricardo Maldonado
    1998 La perfectividad como fuente de contraexpectativas: resulta que X finalmente Y. Memorias del IV Encuentro de Lingüística en el Noroeste, 61–82. Hermosillo: Universidad Autónoma de Sonora.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Heller, Brooke & Chad Howe
    2008 Raising Parentheticals as Discourse Particles. Paper presented atNew Reflections on Grammaticalization4, 16–19July 2008 University of Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hengeveld, Kees & Hella Olbertz
    2012 Didn’t You Know? Mirativity Does Exist!Linguistic Typology16:3.487–503. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hill, Nathan W.
    2012 ‘Mirativity’ Does Not Exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and Other Suspects. Linguistic Typology16:3.389–433. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 On Some Principles of Grammaticization. Approaches to GrammaticalizationVol.Ied. by Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine , 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  38. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  39. Howe, Chad & Brooke Heller
    2010Turns Out They Weren’t Much of a Stretch: Variable patterns of structural persistence. Paper presented at 39th New Ways of Analyzing Variation , 4–6 November. University of Texas, San Antonio.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Huddleston, Rodney D. , & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kaltenböck, Gunther
    2013 The Development of Comment Clauses. The Verb Phrase in Englished. by Bas Aarts , Joanne Close , Geoffrey Leech , & Sean Wallis , 286–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015 Processibility. Corpus Pragmatics: A handbooked. by Karin Aijmer & Christoph Rühlemann , 117–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.007 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kotwica, Dorota
    2015 Evidential al parecer: Between the physical and the cognitive meaning in Spanish scientific prose of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Journal of Pragmatics85.155–167. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.021 [Google Scholar]
  44. López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
    2014 On the Origin of Clausal Parenthetical Constructions: Evidential/epistemic parentheticals with seem and impersonal think . Diachronic Corpus Pragmaticsed. by Irma Taavitsainen , Andreas H. Jucker , & Jukka Tuominen , 189–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.243.12lop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.12lop [Google Scholar]
  45. 2015 Evidential/Epistemic Markers of the Type Verb +  Complementizer: Some parallels from English and Romance. New Directions in Grammaticalization Researched. by Andrew D. M. Smith , Graeme Trousdale , & Richard Waltereit , 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.69.04gip
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.04gip [Google Scholar]
  46. Marín Arrese, Juana I. , Gerda Haßler , & Marta Carretero
    2017Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.271
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271 [Google Scholar]
  47. Olbertz, Hella
    2009 Mirativity and Exclamatives in Functional Discourse Grammar: Evidence from Spanish. Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar82.66–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Peterson, Tyler
    2013 Rethinking Mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. Unpublished manuscript. Available online atsemarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/Archive/2FkYTg4O/Rethinking_Mirativity.pdf.
  49. 2015 Grammatical Evidentiality and the Unprepared Mind. Review of Cognitive Linguistics13:2.314–352. doi: 10.1075/rcl.13.2.03pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.03pet [Google Scholar]
  50. Petré, Peter
    2012 General Productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula. Cognitive Linguistics23:1.27–65. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
  51. Pons Rodríguez, Lola
    2007 El infinitivo no concertado latino en el castellano del siglo XV: propiedades formales. Actes du XXIV Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes (Aberystwyth, 1–6 août 2004)ed. by David A. Trotter , 273–286. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. doi: 10.1515/9783110923582.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110923582.273 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2008 Las construcciones imitativas del Accusativus cum infinitivo: modelos latinos y consecuencias romances. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española3.117–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Pountain, Christopher J.
    1998 Learnèd Syntax and the Romance Languages: The ‘accusative and infinitive’ construction with declarative verbs in Castilian. Transactions of the Philological Society96:2.159–201. doi: 10.1111/1467‑968X.00026
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00026 [Google Scholar]
  54. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , & Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Serrano-Losada, Mario
    . Forthcoming. Raising turn out in Late Modern English: The rise of a mirative predicate. Review of Cognitive Linguistics15:2.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Squartini, Mario
    2001 The Internal Structure of Evidentiality in Romance. Studies in Language25:2.297–334. doi: 10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ [Google Scholar]
  57. Torrego, Esther
    1983 More Effects of Successive Cyclic Movement. Linguistic Inquiry14:3.561–565.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Torres Cacoullos, Rena & James A. Walker
    2009 On the Persistence of Grammar in Discourse Formulas: A variationist study of that . Linguistics47:1.1–43. doi: 10.1515/LING.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1989 On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language65:1.31–55. doi: 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  60. 1997 Subjectification and the Development of Epistemic Meaning: The case of promise and threaten . Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and comparative perspectivesed. by Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik , 185–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110889932.185
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.185 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2003 Constructions in Grammaticalization. The Handbook of Historical Linguisticsed. by Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda , 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  62. Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans
    2003The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Bogaert, Julie
    2011I think and Other Complement-Taking Mental Predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics49:2.295–332. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.009 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): evidentiality; grammaticalization; mirativity; raising predicates; resultar; turn out
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