Multifunctionality of modal markers:Lithuanian epistemic adverbials gal and galbūt ‘perhaps/maybe’ vs. their translational correspondences

Šolienė, Audronė

doi:10.15388/klbt.2015.8947

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In interactive contexts, the deontic particles under study seem to reveal the semantic bleaching of the component of desirability and function as markers of alignment with the addressee's opinion. A similar functional extension into intersubjective markers may be displayed by epistemic adverbs or particles (Traugott & Dasher 2002;Šolienė 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Realizations of deonticity in Lithuanian: The case of particles

Jasionytė-Mikučionienė

Ruskan

2021

open-series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper focuses on non-epistemic modal particles in contemporary Lithuanian that have received far less attention in the literature than epistemic particles. Based on authentic data drawn from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, the study aims to disclose the formal and functional features of the particles tegu(l), te and lai in spoken discourse and fiction. The study has shown that the particles under investigation occur in hortative constructions where they express the speaker’s desire to get a third person or the addressee to carry out some action. Although tegu(l), te and lai share a number of functions (e.g. hortatives, negative or positive performative optatives), functional extension is more typical of tegu(l) than of te and lai. The formal features of the particles (their co-occurrence with indicative or subjunctive forms) provide evidence for their functional variation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Realizations of deonticity in Lithuanian: The case of particles

Jasionytė-Mikučionienė

Ruskan

2021

open-series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reportive evidentials in English and Lithuanian

Usonienė

Šolienė

2017

Studies in Language Companion Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper is concerned with lexical realizations of reportive evidentiality (Boye and Harder 2009; Celle 2009; Wiemer 2007; Aikhenvald 2008; Wiemer 2010b; Boye 2012) across different discourse types and languages. Our aim is to see how language specific the realizations and conceptualization of indirect reportive evidentiality are by contrasting the findings of the analysis of the data collected from various monolingual and parallel corpora. One of the purposes of this contrastive analysis is to find out what kind of correspondence one can expect when dealing with the reportive sub-domain of the linguistic category of evidentiality. The analysis is focused on the hearsay adverbs in English (reportedly, allegedly, supposedly) and Lithuanian adverbials neva ‘allegedly’, tariamai ‘supposedly’, esą ‘allegedly’ as well as their bi-directionally established translation correspondences (comment clauses, complement-taking predicates, as-parentheticals, etc.). The present study is corpus-based and makes use of quantitative and qualitative methods of research. The Lithuanian data have been drawn from the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian (CorALit) and from the spoken, news and fiction sub-corpora of the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (CCLL). The English data have been extracted from the British National Corpus (BYU-BNC). To establish translation correspondences between the items under study, a parallel bidirectional fiction corpus ParaCorpEN-LT-EN, and a collection of translations from English into Lithuanian of EU documents (Glosbe) have been used. Our findings indicate that both sets of adverbials are mainly used in written language (news and academic discourse in English and news discourse and fiction in Lithuanian); however, there is very weak equivalence in their translation correspondences. The question is raised whether the Lithuanian adverbials can be regarded as reportive evidentials.

show abstract

Epistemic qualifications of the English marker likely and its equivalents in Lithuanian

Ruskan¹

2017

KLB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study focuses on the epistemic qualifications realised by the English adjective and adverb likely and its equivalents in Lithuanian panašu 'likely, it seems' and tikėtina 'believable, likely', which derive from the semantic domain of comparison and belief. The aim of the study is to identify the functional similarities and differences of the markers in terms of their frequency, syntactic features (Complement-Taking-Predicates (CTPs), adverbials), functions, collocational profile and type of discourse (academic, newspaper). The English and Lithuanian data were drawn from the monolingual corpora, namely the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (CCLL), Corpus of Academic Lithuanian (CorALit) and the bidirectional parallel corpus ParaCorp ENàLTàEN . The quantitative and qualitative findings reveal that the closest cross-linguistic CTP and adverbial equivalents are likely and tikėtina 'believable, likely' because they are most frequent in formal registers (academic, newspaper discourse) and display similar collocational profiles and contexts of use. In contexts with explicit evidence and argumentation, they may acquire evidential functions. Although the CTP and adverbial panašu 'likely, it seems' shares similarities with likely and tikėtina 'believable, likely' in expressing the author's degree of probability, it shows a different semantic profile from the latter due to its conceptual link with the original meaning of similarity and appearances. The study shows how markers that derive from the semantic domain of comparison vary in functional distribution in present-day English and Lithuanian and introduces their functional equivalents deriving from a different semantic domain.

show abstract

Multifunctionality of modal markers:Lithuanian epistemic adverbials gal and galbūt ‘perhaps/maybe’ vs. their translational correspondences

Cited by 5 publications

References 23 publications

Realizations of deonticity in Lithuanian: The case of particles

Realizations of deonticity in Lithuanian: The case of particles

Reportive evidentials in English and Lithuanian

Epistemic qualifications of the English marker likely and its equivalents in Lithuanian

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About