Cover not available
Article published In:
Evidentiality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
Edited by Bert Cornillie and Juana I. Marín-Arrese
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29] 2015
► pp. 61–82

Metarepresentation and evidentiality in Spanish tense and mood

A cognitive pragmatic perspective

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.
Keywords: SLA, tense, metarepresentations, Spanish, mood
Published online: 24 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.03ahe
References (47)
Ahern, Aoife. 2004. El subjuntivo: significado e inferencia. Un análisis basada en la teoría de la relevancia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Madrid: UNED.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Spanish mood, propositional attitudes and metarepresentation.” In Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: the Michigan State University Papers, ed. by Ken Turner and Klaus von Heusinger, 445–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
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 Yearbook 20141: 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. “Mood interpretation in Spanish: towards an encompassing view of L1 and L2 interface variability.” In The Acquisition of Romance languages, ed. by Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, María Juan Garau and Pilar Larrañaga. Berlin – New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logo
Amenós-Pons, José. 2015. “Spanish ‘Imperfecto’ vs. French ‘Imparfait’ in Hypothetical Clauses: A Procedural Account.” Cahiers Chronos 271: 243–271.Google Scholar
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 Theory 21: 657–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Bott, Oliver. 2010. The Processing of Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bres, Jacques. 2005. L’imparfait dit narratif. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour.” Language 351: 26–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Saussure, Louis and Bertrand Sthioul. 1999. “L’imparfaif narratif : point de vue (et images du monde).” Cahiers de Praxématique 321: 167–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Imparfait et enrichissement pragmatique.” Cahiers Chronos 141: 103–120.Google Scholar
De Saussure, Louis. 2003. Temps et pertinence. Éléments de pragmatique cognitive du temps. Bruxelles: De Boeck – Duculot.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Perspectival Interpretation of Tenses.” In Time, Language, Cognition and Reality, ed. by Kasia M. Jaszcolt and Louis de Saussure, 46–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Swart, Henriette. 1998. “Aspect shift and coercion.” Natural language and linguistic theory 161: 347–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Tense, aspect and coercion in a cross-linguistic perspective.” In Proceedings of the Berkeley Formal Grammar conference University of California. Berkeley, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. CSLI Publications.[URL] (September 2015)Google Scholar
Egg, M. 2005. Flexible Semantics for Reinterpretation Phenomena. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria and Manuel Leonetti. 2003. “On the quotative readings of Spanish Imperfecto.” Cuadernos de Lingüística X1: 135–154.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental.” In Cien años de investigación semántica: De Michel Bréal a la actualidad, vol. 11, ed. by Marcos Martínez, et al., 363–378. Madrid: Coord. Clásicas.Google Scholar
. 2011. “On the Rigidity of Procedural Meaning.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds.), 81–103. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell, Victoria, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds.). 2011. Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gili Gaya, Samuel. 1943. Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Biblograf.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. “Dialogues with… George Lakoff.” In Discussing language, ed. by Herman Parrett, 151–178. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. “Por qué el imperfecto es anafórico.” In El pretérito imperfecto, ed. by Luis García Fernández and Bruno Camus Bergareche, 481–510. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 1994. “Anaphore et déixis temporelles. Sémantique et pragmatique de la référence temporelle.” In Langage et pertinence. Référence temporelle, anaphore, connecteurs et métaphore, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, et al., 39–105. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Pragmatique de la référence temporelle.” In Le temps des événements, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, 157–180. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Pragmatics and linguistic encoding. Evidence from the conceptual/procedural distinction.”Unpublished manuscript. <[URL]> (January 2010).
Moeschler Jacques, Cristina Grisotet and Bruno Cartoni. 2012. “Jusqu’où les temps verbaux sont-ils procéduraux?” Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 301: 119–139.Google Scholar
Montrul, Silvina and Roumyana Slabakova. 2002. “On aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish.” In BUCLD 26 Proceedings, ed. by Barbora Skarabela, et al.(eds.), 631–42. Somerville: MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Competence similarities between natives and near-native speakers: An investigation of the Preterit/Imperfect contrast in Spanish.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 251: 351–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1997. “A Relevance-theoretic account of be going to.” Journal of Linguistics 331: 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization.” Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olmos, Susana and Aoife Ahern. 2009. “Contrast and propositional attitude. A relevance-theoretic analysis of contrast connectives in Spanish and English.” Lingua 119 (1): 51–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 2001/2009. “Cerebral division of labour in verbal communication.” In Cognition and Pragmatics, ed. by Dominiek Sandra, Jan-Ola Östman and Jeff Verschueren, 53–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Neil. 1990. “Observations on the pragmatics of tense.” University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 82–94.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella and Francesca Filiaci. 2006. “Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian.” Second Language Research 221: 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2011. “Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 11: 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Danand and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sthioul, Bertrand. 1998. Temps verbaux et point de vue. In Le temps des événements, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, 197–220. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria and Antonella Sorace. 2006. “Differentiating Interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena.” In Proceedings 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
Vetters, Carl and Walter De Mulder. 2000. “Passé simple et imparfait: contenus conceptual et procédural.” Cahiers Chronos 61: 13–36.Google Scholar
Vetters, Carl. 2003. “L’aspect global: un effet secondaire d’un contenu procédural?” Cahiers Chronos 111: 113–131.Google Scholar
Vicente, Begoña. 2010. “The role of pragmatic inferencing in compositional semantics.” In Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. by Esther Romero and Belén Soria, 58–74. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
White, Lydia. 2009. “Grammatical Theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, ed. by William Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 49–67. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 1993. “Linguistic form and Relevance.” Lingua 901: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ahern, Aoife, José Amenós-Pons & Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes
2023. Relevance theory and the study of linguistic interfaces in second language acquisition. Intercultural Pragmatics 20:4 ► pp. 429 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.