Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Evidentiality in Spanish: Explorations across genres
Edited by Carolina Figueras Bates and Adrián Cabedo
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 290] 2018
► pp. 223–250

Chapter 10
Tenses in interaction

Beyond evidentiality

| University of Alicante
This chapter analyzes the discursive functions performed by the future in Spanish. In order to do so, it departs from a definition of the future based on the deictic ‘distance forward’ instruction, which may be projected along a subjectivity axle and cross different levels of meaning. When distance is projected upon the utterance, the future plays several discursive roles and traverses a variety of categories that go beyond evidentiality. More specifically, the future in Spanish can be a powerful tool to persuade and convince (persuasive future); it can also help control disagreement as part of a counter-argumentation strategy (concessive future); or it can participate in an assessment process (mirative future). Information occurring in the future must have been previously activated for these values to arise, which naturally happens in the context of interaction.
Keywords: future, (inter)subjectivity, (counter)argumentation, mirativity
Article outline
  • 1.Time, tense, tenses, and the puzzle of the future
    • 1.1 Future, discourse, and evidentiality
  • 2.A deictic definition for the future
  • 3. Interaction as a joint activity
  • 4.Discursive functions of the future
    • 4.1 Persuasive future
    • 4.2Concessive future
    • 4.3Mirative future
  • 5. Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.290.10rod
References (123)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. “The essence of mirativity.” Linguistic Typology 16: 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1985. “Conditionals and the Epistemic Scale.” Language 61 (3): 625–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A., and Dan I. Slobin. 1986. “A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish.” In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe, and Johanna Nichols, 159–167. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Albelda, Marta. 2007. La intensificación como categoría pragmática. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Alonso Cortés, Ángel. 1999. “Las construcciones exclamativas. La interjección y las expresiones vocativas.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 3993–4050. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. [1983] 1994. La argumentación en la lengua. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Azorín, Dolores. 2002. (coord.): ALCORE. Alicante Corpus del Español. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Bello, Andrés [1847] 1970. Gramática de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos. Buenos Aires: Sopena.Google Scholar
Bermúdez, Fernando W. 2004. La evidencialidad. La codificación pragmática del punto de vista. Doctoral Dissertation. Stockholms Universitet.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2001. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolón Pedretti, Alma. 1999. “Pasivos serán los de antes: apuntes discursivo-enunciativos sobre un valor de futuro.” Hispania 82: 830–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisard, Frank 2010. “Aspects of Virtuality in the Meaning of the French Imparfait.” Linguistics 48 (2): 487–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisard, Frank, and Adeline Patard. 2011. “Introduction: Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Epistemic Modality.” In Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Epistemic Modality, ed. by Adeline Patard, and Frank Brisard, 1–20. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briz, Antonio. 2003. “Las unidades de la conversación: el acto.” In Estudios ofrecidos al profesor José Jesús de Bustos Tovar, ed. by José Luis Girón Alconchel, Silvia Iglesias, Francisco Javier Herrero, and Antonio Narbona, 953–968. Madrid: Ed. Complutense.Google Scholar
, and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2000. Cómo se comenta un texto coloquial. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. [1934] 1967. Teoría del lenguaje. Madrid: Revista de Occidente.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago / London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Castroviejo, Elena 2008. “Deconstructing Exclamations.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7: 41–90.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “An Expressive Answer. Some Considerations on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Wh-Exclamatives.” Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society <[URL]>.
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by C. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1977. “Bridging.” In Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, ed. by Peter C. Johnson-Laird, and Philip N. Wason, 411–420. London / New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company, Concepción. 2006. “Tiempos de formación romance II. Los futuros y condicionales.” In Sintaxis Histórica de la Lengua EspañolaI, ed. by Concepción Company, 349–418. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2009. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality. On the Close Relationship between Two Different Categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 44–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1976. El sistema verbal románico. México: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra Thompson. 2000. “Concessive patterns in conversation.” In Cause, condition, concession, constrast, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 381-410. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2005. “Encoding Speaker Perspective: Evidentials”. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories, ed. by Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges, and David S. Rood, 379–397. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Saussure, Louis. 2013. “Perspectival Interpretations of Tenses.” In Time. Language, Cognition and Reality, ed. by Kasia M. Jaszczolt, and Louis De Saussure, 46–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. “Mirativity: the Grammatical Marking of Unexpected Information.” Linguistic Typology 1 (1): 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. “The Mirative and Evidentiality.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, Patrick, and Liliane Tasmowski. 2001. “Introduction: Evidentiality and Related Notions.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1996. “Forms, Pragmatic Presupposition, and Activated Propositions.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 475–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1995. “Les modificateurs déréalisants.” Journal of Pragmatics 24: 145–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duque, Eladio. 2016. Las relaciones de discurso. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Escandell, M. Victoria. 2010. “Futuro y evidencialidad.” Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 26: 9–34.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Evidential Futures: The Case of Spanish.” In Future Tense vs. Future Time: An Introduction, ed. by Philippe De Brabanter, Mikhail Kissine, and Saghia Sharifzadeh, 219–246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Español Giralt, M. Teresa. 2011. “Valor concesivo versus adversativo en algunas estructuras propias de la lengua conversacional. Su relación con la modalidad alética o de posibilidad.” In Sintaxis y análisis del discurso hablado en español. Homenaje a Antonio Narbona. Vol. 1, ed. by José Jesús Bustos Tovar, Rafael Cano, Elena Mández, and Araceli López, 209–218. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, 209–218.Google Scholar
Fernández Leborans, María Jesús. 1999. “La predicación. Las oraciones copulativas.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 2357–2461. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Fernández Ramírez, Salvador. 1986. Gramática española. 4. El verbo y la oración. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1981. “Pragmatics and the description of discourse.” In Radical pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 143–166. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language. Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. “Temporal Distance: A Basic Linguistic Metaphor.” Studies in Language 13 (1): 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Negroni, Marta. 2016. “Polifonía, evidencialidad citativa y tiempos verbales. Acerca de los usos citativos del futuro morfológico y del futuro perifrástico.” In La evidencialidad en español. Teoría y descripción, ed. by Ramón González, Dámaso Izquierdo, and Óscar Loureda, 279–301. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert.Google Scholar
Garrido, Joaquín. 2007. “Relaciones de discurso.” Pandora: Revue d’Études Hispaniques 7: 305–332.Google Scholar
Garrido Rodríguez, M. Camino. 2004. Conectores contraargumentativos en la conversación coloquial. León: Universidad de LeónGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Alda Mari. 2012. “The Future of Greek and Italian: An Epistemic Analysis.” Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17: 255–270. [URL]
Gili Gaya, Samuel. [1951] 1993. Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Indugraf.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. [2012] 2015. The Interactive Stance. Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, Ramón, Dámaso Izquierdo, and Óscar Loureda. 2016. “Un acercamiento a los fundamentos de la evidencialidad y a su recepción y tratamiento en la lingüística hispánica.” In La evidencialidad en español. Teoría y descripción, ed. by Ramón González, Dámaso Izquierdo, and Óscar Loureda, 9–45. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert.Google Scholar
Gras, Pedro. 2011. Gramática de construcciones en interacción. Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Ordóñez, Salvador. 1997. Temas, remas, focos, tópicos y comentarios. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2013. “Expressives and Beyond. An Introduction to Varieties of Use-Conditional Meaning.” In Beyond expressives. Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, ed. by Daniel Gutzmann and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1–58. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haβler, Gerda. 2010. “Epistemic Modalityand Evidentiality and their Definition on a Deictic Basis.” In Modality and Mood in Romance: Modal Interpretation, Mood Selection, and Mood Alternation, ed. by Martin G. Becker and Eva-Maria Remberger, 95–108. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1983. “On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions.” WCCFL 2: 114–125.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and Hella Olbertz. 2012. “Didn’t you Know? Mirativity does Exist!” Linguistic Typology 16 (3): 487–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, M. Lluisa. 2012. “Sobre la periferia izquierda y el movimiento: El complementante si en español.” In El movimiento de constituyentes, ed. by Josep Maria Brucart, and Ángel J. Gallego, 151–171. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan. 2012. “Mirativity does not Exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and Other Suspects.” Linguistic Typology 16 (13): 389–434.Google Scholar
Iglesias, Silvia. 2000. “Propiedades interpretativas y discursivas de la estructura ¡(Si) será bobo!” In Cien años de investigación semántica: de Michel Bréal a la actualidad, ed. by José Manuel Oliver Frade et al., 529-542. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2009. Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. “Virtual reality.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29 (2): 77-103.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. “The English Present: Temporal Coincidence vs. Epistemic Immediacy.” In Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Epistemic Modality, ed. by Adeline Patard, and Frank Brisard, 45–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. “Mirativity, Evidentiality, Mediativity, or Other.” Linguistic Typology 3: 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. “Activity Types and Language.” Linguistics 17. 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Presumptive meaning. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge / London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2004. “Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative and Contrastive Marking.” Journal of Semantics 21 (2): 177–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martines, Josep. 2017. “L’émergence des futurs épistémiques romans. L’exemple du catalan médiéval du XIIIème siècle.” In Le futur dans les langues romanes, ed. by Laura Baranzini. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mozerski, Joshua M. 2015. Time, language, and ontology. The world from the B-Theoretic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John. 1997. “Should and ought: The rise of individually oriented modality in American English.” Journal of English Linguistics 1: 3-23.Google Scholar
Montolío, Estrella. 1999. “Las construcciones condicionales.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 3643–3737. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Myhill, John, and Laura A. Smith. 1995. “The Discourse and Interactive Functions of Obligation Expressions.” In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by Joan L. Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 239–292. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001a. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. “Subjectivity as an Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Qualificational Meanings, Illocutionary Signals, and the Cognitive Planning of Language Use.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Notions of (Inter)subjectivity.” English Text Construction 5 (1): 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavón, M. Victoria. 1999. “Clases de partículas: Preposición, conjunción y adverbio.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 565–655. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Pérez Saldanya, Manuel. 2002. “Les relacions temporals i aspectuals.” In Gramàtica del català contemporani, ed. by Joan Solà, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró, and Manuel Pérez Saldanya, 2567–2662. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyle. 2013. “Rethinking Mirativity: The Expression and Implication of Surprise.” Ms., University of Toronto [available at: [URL]], 2013.
Portolés, José. 1993. “Atributos con un enfático.” Revue Romane 28 (2): 218–236.Google Scholar
1998. “El concepto de suficiencia argumentativa.” Signo y Seña 9: 201–224.Google Scholar
Portolés, José. 2004. Pragmática para hispanistas. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Porroche, Margarita. 1998. “Sobre algunos usos de que, si y es que como marcadores discursivos.” In Marcadores del discurso, ed. by María Antonia Martín Zorraquino, and Estrella Montolío, 229–242. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Into the Conventional-Implicature Dimension.” Philosophy Compass 4(2): 665–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1992. “The ZPG letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information Status.” In Discourse Description: Discourse Analyses of a Fundraising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 295–325. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española [RAE]. 2009. Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Morfología. Sintaxis, I. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
. 2014. Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Barcelona: Espasa Libros.Google Scholar
. Banco de datos (CREA). Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. <[URL]>
. Banco de datos (CORPES XXI). Corpus del Español del Siglo XXI. <[URL]>
Reig Alamillo, Assela. 2011. “The Pragmatic Meaning of the Spanish Construction lo que pasa es que .” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1435–1450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2012. “Expressing Exceeded Expectations in Exclamatives and Other Constructions.” Second Cornell workshop in Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Reyes, Graciela. 1990. “Tiempo, modo, aspecto e intertextualidad.” Revista Española de Lingüística 20: 17–53.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 2014. “Spanish Inferential and Mirative Futures and Conditionals: An Evidential Gradable Modal Proposal.” Lingua 151: 197–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. “Information Structure: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics.” OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 91–136.Google Scholar
Rocci, Andrea 2012. “Modality and argumentative discourse relations: A study of the Italian necessity modal dovere.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2129-2149.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, Teresa M. 2016. “Partículas evidenciales en el desarrollo del discurso reformulativo.” In La evidencialidad en español. Teoría y descripción, ed. by Ramón González, Dámaso Izquierdo, and Óscar Loureda, 179–200. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Rosique, Susana. 2008. Pragmática y gramática. Condicionales concesivas en español. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Valores epistémicos de las categorías verbales. Cuando la pragmática se integra en la gramática.” Verba. Anuario Galego de Filoloxia 38: 243–269.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Distance, Evidentiality and Counter-Argumentation: Concessive Future in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 85: 181–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. “Spanish Future in Evaluative Contexts: A Case of Mirativity?” e-Humanista / IVITRA 8: 500–516.Google Scholar
. 2017. “The Future of Necessity in Spanish: Modality, Evidentiality and Deictic Projection at the Crossroads”. In Evidentiality and modality in European languages: Discourse-pragmatic, ed. by Juana Marín-Arrese, Julia Lavid-López, Marta Carretero, Elena Domínguez, María Victoria Martín, and María Pérez, 57-85. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rojo, Guillermo, and Alexandre Veiga. 1999. “El tiempo verbal. Los tiempos simples.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 1867–2934. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 1999. Pragmatics of Conditional Marking. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Viewpoints and Polisemy: Linking Adversative and Causal Meanings of Discourse Markers.” In Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast, ed. by Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 257–281. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Independent Si-Clauses in Spanish.” In Insubordination, ed. by Nicholas Evans, and Honoré Watanabe, 89–112. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario, 2001. “The Internal Structure of Evidentiality in Romance.” Studies in Language 25 (2): 297–334 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 2008. “Lexical vs. Grammatical Evidentiality in French and Italian.” Linguistics 46 (5): 917–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Evidentiality in Interaction: The Concessive Use of the Italian Future between Grammar and Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2116–2128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. “Assertion.” In Syntax and semantics 9. Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suñer, Avel.lina. 1999. “La aposición y otras relaciones de predicación en el sintagma nominal.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 523–364. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth C. 1989. “Subjectification in Grammaticalisation.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2010. “(Inter) subjectivity and (Inter) subjectification: A Reassessment.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. “Modality’s Semantic Map.” Linguistic Typology 2: 7–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willet, Thomas. 1988. “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12: 51-97.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cabedo Nebot, Adrián & Carolina Figueras Bates
2018. Chapter 1. Evidentiality in discourse. In Perspectives on Evidentiality in Spanish [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 290], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.