Distance, evidentiality and counter-argumentation: Concessive future in Spanish

Rosique, Susana Rodríguez

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.017

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From a functional point of view, however, evidentiality is considered to be a phenomenon that goes beyond grammar and must be regarded as a universal semantic category (Cornillie, 2007;Boye, 2010;Diewald and Smirnova, 2010;Albelda, 2015Albelda, , 2016Alonso-Almeida, 2015;Izquierdo, 2016;Kotwica, 2017;Estellés, 2018). From this point of view, polyfunctional forms and constructions are considered capable of expressing evidentiality in Spanish, as in some particular uses of the imperfect, perfect and future tenses, verbs of perception, modal verbs, impersonal pronouns, and so on (Fernández, 2013;Henneman, 2013;Escandell Vidal, 2014;García-Negroni and Libenson, 2014;Rodríguez-Rosique, 2015;García-Negroni, 2016).…”

Section: Evidentiality In Spanish: Evidential Meaning In the Construcmentioning

confidence: 99%

From visual perception to evidentiality: A functional empirical approach to se ve que in Spanish

Marco

Jansegers

2019

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Spanish sequence se ve (que) presents intricate functional polysemy, including constructionalization as an evidential. The present paper investigates its different formal-functional combinations and degrees of specialization as an evidential construction. The following questions were addressed: (1) How many different senses can be distinguished in the sequence se ve (que) and what are their respective frequencies? (2) How do these senses correlate with the morphosyntactic behavior of the sequence se ve (que)? (3) Which senses of se ve (que) are more closely related to each other, and how does the evidential construction relate to this polysemous network? The semantic and formal affinities of se ve (que) were studied through the Behavioral Profiles method developed by Gries and Divjak (2009), which provides an empirical, systematic and verifiable approach to studying lexical phenomena. Its application to a pragmatic phenomenon is a new departure. The results show seven senses of se ve (que), ranging from the lexical value of direct physical perception to the more abstract and evidential value of 'source of information'. According to the corpus analysis, the closest senses to the evidential pole are indirect physical perception and cognitive perception. These all introduce an inflected verb clause, possess propositional scope and are morphosyntactically frozen..

show abstract

Section: Evidentiality In Spanish: Evidential Meaning In the Construcmentioning

confidence: 99%

From visual perception to evidentiality: A functional empirical approach to se ve que in Spanish

Marco

Jansegers

2019

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No obstante, frente a -o junto a-esta concepción, van tomando presencia en los últimos años trabajos que se ocupan de dar cuenta de los modos o mecanismos lingüísticos por medio de los cuales las lenguas no evidenciales y, en el caso que nos ocupa, el español codifican valores evidenciales cuando los hablantes quieren o necesitan hacerlo (Estrada 2013;Speranza 2014;Albelda 2015;González 2015). Desde esta perspectiva, y sin negar que en muchos de los casos no se trata de una asociación convencional entre la forma o rasgo lingüístico y un valor evidencial, se han señalado elementos que codifican valores evidenciales en español en diferentes niveles de análisis: en el fónico (Estellés 2015); en el morfológico, específicamente en la flexión verbal (Bermúdez 2005;Escandell 2010;Rodríguez Rosique 2015); en construcciones sintácticas más o menos fijadas o variables (Schwenter 1999;Rodríguez Ramalle 2015;Albelda 2016) y en elementos léxicos con valor pragmático o marcadores discursivos (De la Mora y Maldonado 2015; Cornillie & Gras 2015).…”

Section: Algunas Nociones Sobre Evidencialidadunclassified

La interrogativa total con ¿no que...? y su significado evidencial

Alamillo

2019

NRFH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artículo propone el análisis de la construcción interrogativa con ¿no que ... ? como una construcción interrogativa total marcada que, frente a la interrogativa neutra, aporta un significado convencional no proposicional enmarcado en la expresión de la evidencialidacl. En concreto, ¿no que p? codifica el conflicto entre un primer valor evidencia! indirecto referido (se dijo p) y un valor evidencia! personal (directo o indirecto inferido) del contenido contrario (es evidente que no p).

show abstract

“…Discursive concessivity has been most notably studied in the literature on future tense to target one of its non-temporal uses. This type of concessivity is in the repertoire of a variety of Romance languages including, among others, Spanish (already Gili Gaya, 1951;but recently Escandell-Vidal, 2010and Rodríguez Rosique, 2015; see (2)), Portuguese (Paiva Boléo, 1973;Giomi, 2017;see (3)) and Italian (Ageno, 1965;Bertinetto, 1979Bertinetto, , 1986Bertinetto, , 1991Radanova-Kuševa, 1991-1992Berretta, 1997;Rocci, 2000;Squartini, 2012; see (4)) Works on the concessive use of the Italian future have most notably considered concessivity in the light of intersubjectivity (see in particular Squartini, 2012; for Spanish, see Rivero, 2014 andRodríguez Rosique, 2015) and concessivity is understood as a 'concession' from the speaker to the addressee that p 2 is true. Theoreticians have furthermore claimed that, in conceding to the addressee that p is true, the speaker 'distances' herself from the truth of p and thereby does not endorse p. The paradigmatic example of this distancing is in (4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From epistemic modality to concessivity: Alternatives and pragmatic reasoning per absurdum

Baranzini

Mari

2019

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an unnoticed parallelism between what has been called the concessive future (Sarà un professore universitario, ma sicuramenteè un idiota) 1 in the literature on some Romance languages (and Italian in particular), and what has been labeled 'speech act modality' (He may be a university professor, but he sure is dumb; Sweetser, 1990: 70) in the literature on English modals. In these parallel literatures, the idea is advanced that the future tense and the English modals may/might are concessive in that they 'concede' to the addressee that p is true and they thus convey 'distancing'. Establishing a connection with irrelevance conditionals (König, 1986 and subsequent literature), we propose a different unified view of these phenomena cross-linguistically, which grounds in the existential epistemic modal semantics of both the future tense in Italian and the epistemic modal in English (and French peut-être) their capacity of enhancing a concessive interpretation in discourse and in particular in an adversative construction. We capitalize on their alternative semantics, as well as on the interaction between the alternatives and the adversative, and propose an account in which distancing is the pragmatic counterpart of the dismissal of a premise that leads to an inconsistency in a pragmatic reasoning per absurdum. We will spell out a variety of pragmatic effects, which have been previously gathered under the label 'distancing' and which correspond, in our analysis, to different strategies to repair the absurdum.

show abstract

Distance, evidentiality and counter-argumentation: Concessive future in Spanish

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

From visual perception to evidentiality: A functional empirical approach to se ve que in Spanish

From visual perception to evidentiality: A functional empirical approach to se ve que in Spanish

La interrogativa total con ¿no que...? y su significado evidencial

From epistemic modality to concessivity: Alternatives and pragmatic reasoning per absurdum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About