1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article focuses on three constructions in Spanish and Portuguese that contain epistemic and evidential modifiers. It proposes that these constructions can be analyzed as cases of near-synonymy. Two of them are attested cross-linguistically: in the first, the modifiers function as predicative adjectives in impersonal copula clauses, while in the second, they are sentential adverbs. In the third type of construction, typical of the languages under investigation, the modifiers are followed by the complementizer and introduce root clauses. The first part of the article describes the interpretive contrasts between the three constructions. The modifiers receive a different (inter)subjective reading depending on the construction in which they appear. Additionally, they operate on different levels of (non-)at-issue meaning. The second part of the article presents a quantitative study that complements the insights from the first part. In this empirical study, the influence of the text type, the modifier and the language on the choice of construction is modeled statistically. The results support the idea that the constructions are stylistic near-synonyms since their choice is strongly determined by the text type they appear in.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00005.koc
2018-02-22
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H.
    2008Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Comer, M. , Enghels, R. and Vanderschueren, C.
    2016 Measuring the Degree of Near-Synonymy of Spanish Verbs of Putting: A Multivariable Corpus Analysis of poner and meter . Functions of Language23 (3): 279–304. doi: 10.1075/fol.23.3.01com
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23.3.01com [Google Scholar]
  4. Cornillie, B.
    2009 Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: On the Close Relationship between Two Different Categories. Functions of Language16(1): 44–62. doi: 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  5. Cruschina, S.
    2015 The Expression of Evidentiality and Epistemicity: Cases of Grammaticalization in Italian and Sicilian. Probus27: 1–31. doi: 10.1515/probus‑2013‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0006 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dendale, P. and Tasmowski, L.
    2001 Introduction: Evidentiality and Related Notions. Journal of Pragmatics33 (3): 339–348. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00005‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00005-9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Diewald, G. and Smirnova, E.
    2010Evidentiality in German, Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110241037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  8. Divjak, D.
    2006 Ways of Intending: Delineating and Structuring near Synonyms. InCorpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, S. Griess and A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 19–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Divjal, D.
    2010Structuring the Lexicon: A Clustered Model for near-Synonymy. Vol.43. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110220599
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220599 [Google Scholar]
  10. Divjak, D. and Gries, S.
    2006Ways of Trying in Russian: Clustering Behavioral Profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2 (1): 29–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Edmonds, P. and Hirst, G.
    2002 Near-Synonymy and Lexical Choice. Computational Linguistics28 (2): 105–144. doi: 10.1162/089120102760173625
    https://doi.org/10.1162/089120102760173625 [Google Scholar]
  12. Enghels, R. and Jansegers, M.
    2013 On the Crosslinguistic Equivalence of Sentir(e) in Romance Languages: A Contrastive Study in Semantics. Linguistics51(5): 957–991. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0034 [Google Scholar]
  13. Enghels, R. and Roegiest, E.
    2014 Contrasting the Syntax and Semantics of Negative Causation: The Apparent Similarity of Spanish and Portuguese. Languages in Contrast14(2): 278–305. doi: 10.1075/lic.14.2.05eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.2.05eng [Google Scholar]
  14. Etxepare, R.
    1997The Grammatical Representation of Speech Events. Maryland: University of Maryland.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fagard, B. and Mardale, A.
    2012 The Pace of Grammaticalization and the Evolution of Prepositional Systems: Data from Romance. Folia Linguistica46(2): 303–40. doi: 10.1515/flin.2012.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2012.011 [Google Scholar]
  16. Faller, M.
    2006 Evidentiality above and below Speech Acts. Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2014 Reportative Evidentials and Modal Subordination. Lingua186–187: 55–67
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Freites Barros, F.
    2006 El marcador de discurso claro: funcionamiento pragmático, metadiscursivo y organizador de la estructura temática. VERBA33: 261–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Glynn, D.
    2010 Synonymy, Lexical Fields, and Grammatical Constructions: A Study in Usage-Based Cognitive Semantics. Cognitive Foundations of Linguistics Usage Patterns, H. -J. Schmid and S. Handl (eds), 89–118. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110216035.89
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035.89 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gras, P.
    2010 Gramática de construcciones en interacción. Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español. Phd Thesis, Universitat de Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, S.
    1999 Particle Movement: A Cognitive and Functional Approach. Cognitive Linguistics10: 105–146. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1999.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2013Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110307474
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gries, S. and Stefanowitsch, A.
    2004a Co-Varying Collexemes in the into Causative. Language, Culture, and Mind, M. Achard and S. Kemmer (eds), 225–236. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2004b Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on Alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9 (1): 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  25. 2010 “Cluster Analysis and the Identification of Collexeme Classes.” Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, S. Rice and J. Newman (eds), 73–90. Stanford, CA; CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Grondelaers, S. , Geeraerts, D. and Speelman, D.
    2007 A Case for a Cognitive Corpus Linguistics. Methods in Cognitive Linguistics18: 149–169. doi: 10.1075/hcp.18.12gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.12gro [Google Scholar]
  27. Hernanz, M. L. and Rigau, G.
    2006 Variación Dialectal y Periferia Izquierda. InAndolin Gogoan: Essays in Honour of Professor Eguzkitza, B. Fernández and I. Laka (eds), 435–52. Bilbao: Servei editorial de la UPV-EHU.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Heylen, K.
    2005 A Quantitative Corpus Study of German Word Order Variation. Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser and M. Reis (eds), 241–264. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110197549.241
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.241 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hill, V.
    2007 Romanian Adverbs and the Pragmatic Field. The Linguistic Review24: 61–86. doi: 10.1515/TLR.2007.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2007.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Janda, L. and Solovyev, V.
    2009What Constructional Profiles Reveal about Synonymy: A Case Study of Russian Words for SADNESS and HAPPINESS. Cognitive Linguistics20 (2): 367–393.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jansegers, M.
    2017Hacia Un Enfoque Múltiple de La Polisemia: Un Estudio Empírico Del Verbo Multimodal «sentir» Desde Una Perspectiva Sincrónica y Diacrónica. Vol.407. Walter de Gruyter GmbH and Co KG. doi: 10.1515/9783110476972
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110476972 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kocher, A.
    2014 Claro que son Adverbios: Análisis de un proceso de gramaticalización. Master thesis, Universität Wien.
  33. 2017 From verum to epistemic modality and evidentiality: On the emergence of the Spanish Adv+C construction. Journal of Historical Linguistics7 (1): 78–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Levshina, N.
    2015How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  35. Louviere, J. , Hensher, D. and Swait, J.
    2000Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511753831
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lyons, J.
    1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Martín Zorraquino, M. A.
    1998 Los Marcadores Del Discurso Desde El Punto de Vista Gramatical. InLos Marcadores Del Discurso: Teoría y Análisis, M. A. Martín Zorraquino (ed), 19–54. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Matthewson, L.
    2015 Evidential Restrictions on Epistemic Modals. InEpistemic Indefinites, L. Alonso-Ovalle and P. Menendez-Benito (eds), 141–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  39. Nuyts, J.
    2001 Subjectivity as an Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions. Journal of Pragmatic33: 383–400. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2014 Subjectivity in Modality, and Beyond. InDialogue Studies25, A. Zuczkowski , R. Bongelli , I. Riccioni , and C. Canestrari (eds), 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ocampo, F.
    2006 Movement towards Discourse Is Not Grammaticalization: The Evolution of Claro from Adjective to Discourse Particle in Spoken Spanish. InSelected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, N. Sagarra and A. Toribio (eds), 308–19. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Papafragou, A.
    2006 Epistemic Modality and Truth Conditions. Lingua116 (10): 1688–1702. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pijpops, D. and Speelman, D.
    2016 Alternating Argument Constructions of Dutch Psychological Verbs. A Theory-Driven Corpus Investigation. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae51 (1): 207–251.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Potts, C.
    2005The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ramat, P. and Ricca, D.
    1994 Prototipical Adverbs: On the Scalarity/Radiality of the Notion of ADVERB. Rivista Di Linguistica6: 289–326.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Regueiro Rodríguez, M.
    2010La Sinonimia. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rice, S. and Newman, J.
    2004 Aspect in the Making: A Corpus Analysis of English Aspect-Marking Prepositions. Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, M. Achard and S. Kemmer (eds), 313–327. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Roberts, C.
    1996 Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. Working Papers in Linguistics Ohio State University Department of Linguistics49: 91–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rodríguez Ramalle, T. M.
    2007 El Complementante ‘Que’ Como Marca Enfática En El Texto Periodístico. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada6: 41–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2008 El Que Como Marca Enfática Discursiva En Adverbios e Interjecciones. In25 Años de Lingüística Aplicada En España: Hitos y Retos, R. Monroy and A. Sánchez (eds), 811–816. Murcia: EDITUM.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2015 A Discourse-Based Approach to Some Uses of the Conjunction Que in Romance Languages. Languages in Contrast15 (1): 125–50. doi: 10.1075/lic.15.1.07ram
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15.1.07ram [Google Scholar]
  52. Sansiñena Pascual, M. S.
    2015 The Multiple Functional Load of Que. AnInteractional Approach to Insubordinate Complement Clauses in Spanish. Phd Thesis, KU Leuven.
  53. Simons, M. , Tonhauser, J. , Beaver, D. and Roberts, C.
    2010 What Projects and Why. InSemantics and Linguistic Theory20: 309–327. doi: 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584 [Google Scholar]
  54. Speelman, D. and Geeraerts, D.
    2009 Causes for Causatives: The Case of Dutch Doen and Laten. Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition: 173–204. InCausal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, T. Sanders and E. Sweetser (eds), 173–204. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110224429.173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.173 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S.
    2003 Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8(2): 209–243. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00005.koc
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00005.koc
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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