Cover not available
Article published In:
Extending the notion of near-synonymy: Studies in morphological, syntactic and pragmatic equivalence
Edited by Renata Enghels
[Languages in Contrast 18:1] 2018
► pp. 99–121

Epistemic and evidential modification in Spanish and Portuguese

A quantitative approach

| Universität Wien
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 que 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.
Keywords: epistemic modality, evidentiality, (inter)subjectitivity, quantitative linguistics, Portuguese/Spanish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contrasting the three constructions
    • 2.1Subjectivity and intersubjectivity
    • 2.2Shared and new information
    • 2.3At-issue and non-at-issue meaning
  • 3.Quantitative analysis
    • 3.1Methods
    • 3.2Data
    • 3.3Response variable
    • 3.4Predictor variables
    • 3.5Results
    • 3.6Discussion
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00005.koc
References (55)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Language 23 (3): 279–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2015. The Expression of Evidentiality and Epistemicity: Cases of Grammaticalization in Italian and Sicilian. Probus 271: 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, P. and Tasmowski, L. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and Related Notions. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (3): 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. and Smirnova, E. 2010. Evidentiality in German, Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. 2006. Ways of Intending: Delineating and Structuring near Synonyms. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, S. Griess and A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 19–56.Google Scholar
Divjal, D. 2010. Structuring the Lexicon: A Clustered Model for near-Synonymy. Vol. 431. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. and Gries, S. 2006. Ways of Trying in Russian: Clustering Behavioral Profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2 (1): 29–60.Google Scholar
Edmonds, P. and Hirst, G. 2002. Near-Synonymy and Lexical Choice. Computational Linguistics 28 (2): 105–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. and Jansegers, M. 2013. On the Crosslinguistic Equivalence of Sentir(e) in Romance Languages: A Contrastive Study in Semantics. Linguistics 51(5): 957–991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. and Roegiest, E. 2014. Contrasting the Syntax and Semantics of Negative Causation: The Apparent Similarity of Spanish and Portuguese. Languages in Contrast 14(2): 278–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, R. 1997. The Grammatical Representation of Speech Events. Maryland: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Fagard, B. and Mardale, A. 2012. The Pace of Grammaticalization and the Evolution of Prepositional Systems: Data from Romance. Folia Linguistica 46(2): 303–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, M. 2006. Evidentiality above and below Speech Acts. Manuscript.Google Scholar
2014. Reportative Evidentials and Modal Subordination. Lingua 186–1871: 55–67Google Scholar
Freites Barros, F. 2006. El marcador de discurso claro: funcionamiento pragmático, metadiscursivo y organizador de la estructura temática. VERBA 331: 261–79.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Gries, S. 1999. Particle Movement: A Cognitive and Functional Approach. Cognitive Linguistics 101: 105–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
2004b. Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on Alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Grondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D. and Speelman, D. 2007. A Case for a Cognitive Corpus Linguistics. Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 181: 149–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, M. L. and Rigau, G. 2006. Variación Dialectal y Periferia Izquierda. In Andolin Gogoan: Essays in Honour of Professor Eguzkitza, B. Fernández and I. Laka (eds), 435–52. Bilbao: Servei editorial de la UPV-EHU.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, V. 2007. Romanian Adverbs and the Pragmatic Field. The Linguistic Review 241: 61–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. and Solovyev, V. 2009. What Constructional Profiles Reveal about Synonymy: A Case Study of Russian Words for SADNESS and HAPPINESS. Cognitive Linguistics 20 (2): 367–393.Google Scholar
Jansegers, M. 2017. Hacia Un Enfoque Múltiple de La Polisemia: Un Estudio Empírico Del Verbo Multimodal «sentir» Desde Una Perspectiva Sincrónica y Diacrónica. Vol. 4071. Walter de Gruyter GmbH and Co KG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kocher, A. 2014. Claro que son Adverbios: Análisis de un proceso de gramaticalización. Master thesis, Universität Wien.Google Scholar
2017. From verum to epistemic modality and evidentiality: On the emergence of the Spanish Adv+C construction. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7 (1): 78–111.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J., Hensher, D. and Swait, J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, M. A. 1998. Los Marcadores Del Discurso Desde El Punto de Vista Gramatical. In Los Marcadores Del Discurso: Teoría y Análisis, M. A. Martín Zorraquino (ed), 19–54. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. 2015. Evidential Restrictions on Epistemic Modals. In Epistemic Indefinites, L. Alonso-Ovalle and P. Menendez-Benito (eds), 141–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2001. Subjectivity as an Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions. Journal of Pragmatic 331: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Subjectivity in Modality, and Beyond. In Dialogue Studies 251, A. Zuczkowski, R. Bongelli, I. Riccioni, and C. Canestrari (eds), 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ocampo, F. 2006. Movement towards Discourse Is Not Grammaticalization: The Evolution of Claro from Adjective to Discourse Particle in Spoken Spanish. In Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, N. Sagarra and A. Toribio (eds), 308–19. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. 2006. Epistemic Modality and Truth Conditions. Lingua 116 (10): 1688–1702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. and Speelman, D. 2016. Alternating Argument Constructions of Dutch Psychological Verbs. A Theory-Driven Corpus Investigation. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 51 (1): 207–251.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramat, P. and Ricca, D. 1994. Prototipical Adverbs: On the Scalarity/Radiality of the Notion of ADVERB. Rivista Di Linguistica 61: 289–326.Google Scholar
Regueiro Rodríguez, M. 2010. La Sinonimia. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
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
Roberts, C. 1996. Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. Working Papers in Linguistics Ohio State University Department of Linguistics 491: 91–136.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, T. M. 2007. El Complementante ‘Que’ Como Marca Enfática En El Texto Periodístico. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 61: 41–53.Google Scholar
2008. El Que Como Marca Enfática Discursiva En Adverbios e Interjecciones. In 25 Años de Lingüística Aplicada En España: Hitos y Retos, R. Monroy and A. Sánchez (eds), 811–816. Murcia: EDITUM.Google Scholar
2015. A Discourse-Based Approach to Some Uses of the Conjunction Que in Romance Languages. Languages in Contrast 15 (1): 125–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansiñena Pascual, M. S. 2015. The Multiple Functional Load of Que. AnInteractional Approach to Insubordinate Complement Clauses in Spanish. Phd Thesis, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D. and Roberts, C. 2010. What Projects and Why. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 201: 309–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D. and Geeraerts, D. 2009. Causes for Causatives: The Case of Dutch Doen and Laten. Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition: 173–204. In Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, T. Sanders and E. Sweetser (eds), 173–204. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar