Un paradigma en potencialos verbos de ascenso evidenciales y admirativos en la historia del inglés

  1. Mario Serrano Losada 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Journal:
Revista Española de Lingüística
  1. Lozano Palacio, Inés (coord.)
  2. Jurado Bravo, María Ángeles (coord.)
  3. Kristiansen, Gitte (coord.)

ISSN: 2254-8769

Year of publication: 2023

Volume: 53

Issue: 1

Pages: 147-177

Type: Article

DOI: 10.31810/RSEL.53.1.7 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Revista Española de Lingüística

Abstract

The present paper zooms in on two specific case studies –the obsolescence of "chance" and the emergence of "turn out"– to address, on the one hand, the growing paradigmatization of English evidential and mirative raising verbs, and, on the other, to explore the cognitive processes involved in the emergence and obsolescence of members of this incipient category. Thus, the diachronic data reveal that this set of verbs has developed common constructional patterns and features that allow them to be considered an emerging paradigm. In fact, the obsolescence and emergence of the analyzed verbs point toward a complex evolution in which different constructions are intricately intertwined: as new evidential and mirative verbs have emerged, preexisting members of this category have undergone significant changes to accommodate the newcomers. Thus, the incorporation of "turn out" in the 18th century as a new member of the class had important repercussions in the system that would result in the disappearance of "chance". The study of this network of expressions from a constructional perspective allows us to trace its complex history from a broad perspective, as well as to shed light on processes such as analogization, constructionalization, and paradigmatization. The article is based on data from various synchronous and diachronic English corpora, including COCA, EEBOCorp, and CLMET, among others.

€ View funding

Funding information

El presente trabajo se ha realizado en el marco del proyecto de investigación «Construccionalización en el discurso oral y escrito: datos del inglés histórico y contemporáneo» (PID2020-114604GB-100), financiado por el Programa Estatal de Generación de Conocimiento del Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • CLMET = De Smet, Hendrik, Hans Jurgen Dillerand & Jukka Tyrkkö (2013). The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/
  • COCA = Davies, Mark (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
  • COHA = Davies, Mark (2010-). The Corpus of Historical American English.
  • http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/
  • EEBOCorp = Petré, Peter (2013). Early English Books Online Corpus 1.0. Available at: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/416330
  • MED = McSparran et al. (Eds.). (2000-2018). Middle English Dictionary (Online edition). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/
  • NOW = Davies, Mark (2013). Corpus of News on the Web: 3 + billion words from 20 countries, updated every day. http://corpus.byu.edu/now/
  • OED = (2000-). Oxford English Dictionary Online (3rd ed., in progress). http://www.oed.com.
  • Fuentes secundarias
  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). A grammar of Tariana, from northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107050952
  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2011). The grammaticalization of evidentiality, en B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, pp. 605-613. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0049
  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3), 435-485. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017
  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2015). Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology, 19(2), 239-277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0008
  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Aksu-Koç, A. A., y Slobin, D. I. (1986). A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish, en W. L. Chafe y J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 159-167). Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
  • Alcázar, A. (2018). Dizque and other emergent evidential forms in Romance languages, en A. Y. Aikhenvald (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, pp. 725-740. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers (1.a ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456
  • Boye, K. y Harder, P. (2007). Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3), 569-606. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
  • Boye, K., y Harder, P. (2009). Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16(1), 9-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy
  • Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9
  • Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526
  • Chafe, W. L. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing, en W. L. Chafe y J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261-272). Berlín: Ablex Publishing.
  • Cornillie, B. (2007). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-)auxiliaries: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Cruschina, S. (2015). The expression of evidentiality and epistemicity: Cases of grammaticalization in Italian and Sicilian. Probus 27(1), 1-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0006
  • Davies, W. D. y Dubinsky, S. (2004). The Grammar of Raising and Control. Blackwell Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755693
  • De Smet, H. (2009). Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119(11), 1728-1755. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
  • De Smet, H. (2010). Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth, en E. C. Traugott y G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 75-104). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.06des
  • De Smet, H. (2016). How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(01), 83-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000186
  • De Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., y Goethem, K. V. (2018). The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2), 197-234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025
  • Dehé, N. y Kavalova, Y. (Eds.). (2007). Parentheticals. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1), 33-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
  • DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3), 369-382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1
  • DeLancey, S. (2012). Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16(3), 529-564. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0020
  • Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (2010a). Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (2010b). Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Escalona Torres, J. M. (2020). Mirativity as expressive meaning: The case of adiós. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 13(2), 309-330. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2020-2032
  • Faller, M. T. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua [PhD dissertation, Stanford University]. http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/martina.t.faller/documents/Thesis.pdf
  • Gisborne, N., & Holmes, J. (2007). A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics 11(01), 1-29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306002097
  • Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hengeveld, K., y Olbertz, H. (2012). Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology 16(3), 487-503. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0018
  • Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Krawczak, K., and Glynn, D. (2015). Operationalizing mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13(2), 353-382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.04kra
  • Langacker, R. W. (1995). Raising and transparency. Language 71(1), 1.
  • doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/415962
  • Laprade, R. (1981). Some cases of Aymara influence on La Paz Spanish. En M. J. Hardman (Ed.), The Aymara language in its social and cultural context: A collection of essays on aspects of Aymara language and culture, 207-227. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida.
  • Lehmann, C. (2015). Thoughts on grammaticalization (3ª ed.). Berlín: Language Science Press.
  • López-Couso, M. J. y Méndez-Naya, B. (2014). On the origin of clausal parenthetical constructions: Epistemic/evidential parentheticals with seem and impersonal think, en I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker, y J. Tuominen (Eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics, pp. 189-212. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.12lop
  • Marín Arrese, J. I., Haßler, G., y Carretero, M. (Eds.). (2017). Evidentiality revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271
  • Meillet, A. (1912). L’ évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia: rivista internazionale di sintesi scientifica 12(6), 384-400.
  • Peterson, T. (2017). Problematizing mirativity. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 312-342. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.02pet
  • Petré, P. (2012). General productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1), 27-65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0002
  • Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Serrano-Losada, M. (2017a). Raising turn out in Late Modern English: The rise of a mirative predicate. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15(2), 411-437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.05ser
  • Serrano-Losada, M. (2017b). On English turn out and Spanish resultar mirative constructions: A case of ongoing grammaticalization? Journal of Historical Linguistics 7(1/2), 160-189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.7.1-2.07ser
  • Serrano-Losada, M. (2020). Analogy-driven change: The emergence and development of mirative end up constructions in American English. English Language & Linguistics 24(1), 97-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674318000266
  • Squartini, M. (2018). Mirative extensions in Romance: Evidential or epistemic?, en Z. Guentchéva (Ed.), Epistemic modalities and evidentiality in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 196-214). Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572261-009
  • Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification, en R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
  • Traugott, E. C. (2012). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction 5(1), 7-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau
  • Traugott, E. C. (2022). Ten lectures on a diachronic constructionalist approach to discourse structuring markers. Leiden: Brill.
  • Traugott, E. C., y Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Trousdale, G. (2016). Construction grammar, en M. Kytö y P. Pahta (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, pp. 65-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tyler, A., y Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Bogaert, J. (2011). I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49(2), 295-332. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.009
  • Visser, F. T. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language. Volume I: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001
  • Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1), 51-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
Data source: Dialnet