Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (13)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Postprint (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Habilitation Thesis (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (21)
Keywords
- Spanish (4)
- Cognitive Construction Grammar (3)
- Evidentialität (3)
- epistemic modality (3)
- evidentiality (3)
- Modalität (2)
- Spanish modal adverbs (2)
- Spanish verbs of cognitive attitude (2)
- context sensitivity (2)
- corpus analysis (2)
Institute
This article deals with Spanish modal adverbs and verbs of cognitive attitude (Capelli 2007) and their epistemic and/or evidential use. The article is based upon the hypothesis that the study of the use of these linguistic devices has to be highly context-sensitive, as it is not always (only) the sentence level that has to be looked at if one wants to find out whether a certain adverb or verb of cognitive attitude is used evidentially or epistemically. In this article, therefore, the context is used to determine which meaning aspects of an element are encoded and which are contributed by the context. The data were retrieved from the daily newspaper El Pais. Nevertheless, the present study is not a quantitative one, but rather a qualitative study. My corpus analysis indicates that it is not possible to differentiate between the linguistic categories of evidentiality and epistemic modality in every case, although it indeed is possible in the vast majority of cases. In verbs of cognitive attitude, evidentiality and epistemic modality seem to be two interwoven categories, while concerning modal adverbs it is usually possible to separate the categories and to distinguish between the different subtypes of evidentiality such as visual evidence, hearsay and inference.
This article deals with Spanish modal adverbs and verbs of cognitive attitude (Capelli 2007) and their epistemic and/or evidential use. The article is based upon the hypothesis that the study of the use of these linguistic devices has to be highly context-sensitive, as it is not always (only) the sentence level that has to be looked at if one wants to find out whether a certain adverb or verb of cognitive attitude is used evidentially or epistemically. In this article, therefore, the context is used to determine which meaning aspects of an element are encoded and which are contributed by the context. The data were retrieved from the daily newspaper El País. Nevertheless, the present study is not a quantitative one, but rather a qualitative study. My corpus analysis indicates that it is not possible to differentiate between the linguistic categories of evidentiality and epistemic modality in every case, although it indeed is possible in the vast majority of cases. In verbs of cognitive attitude, evidentiality and epistemic modality seem to be two interwoven categories, while concerning modal adverbs it is usually possible to separate the categories and to distinguish between the different subtypes of evidentiality such as visual evidence, hearsay and inference.
Así que als Diskursmarker
(2015)
The present paper discusses Spanish así que (‘so that’) as a discourse marker by means of data that are retrieved from the Corpus del Español. The synchronic study has both a quantitative and a qualitative side. From a quantitative perspective the use of así que as a discourse marker is compared with its use as a conjunction. It is shown that así que as a conjunction is far more frequent. The qualitative analysis focuses on the different procedural meanings of así que: it can be used to introduce a summary, a consequence or an inference, and, on behalf of the interlocutor, even a question. The study furthermore reveals that así que as a discourse marker can well be analysed in terms of adfunctionalization / capitalization, i.e. when an already existing means of expression becomes exploited for wider purposes. In this context, the notions of grammaticalization, lexicalization and pragmaticalization are also briefly discussed.
Dieser Band entstand auf der Basis von Beiträgen, die zum XXIV. Internationalen Kolloquium des Studienkreises ‘Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft’ vom 22. bis 24. August 2013 vorgetragen wurden. Ausschlaggebend für die Wahl des Themas war nicht ein Befolgen des Zeitgeistes, der immer wieder auf die Krise hinweist, die Europa durchlebt und die sich natürlich auch im metasprachlichen Bewusstsein niederschlägt, sondern die Absicht, eine von der Feststellung von Kontinuitäten in der Entwicklung der Sprachwissenschaft unterschiedene Forschungsperspektive einzunehmen.
Krisenzeiten und Umbrüche führen allerdings tatsächlich auch zu veränderten Diskursstrategien und Bezeichnungsmustern, die auch von linguistischen Laien wahrgenommen und diskutiert werden. Sprachwandeltheorien spiegeln zwar ein Bewusstsein von Phasen sehr dynamischer sprachlicher Entwicklungen wider, nicht jedoch ein Interesse an dem gesellschaftlich bedingten initialen Moment, an dem anfänglichen Auslöser von Sprachwandel. Eine Umbruchkonzeption, die Gesellschafts- und Sprachgeschichte in diesem Sinn aufeinander beziehen würde, wurde bisher nicht entwickelt. ...
Viel mehr als dieser lebensweltliche Bezug des Verhältnisses von Sprache und Krise bildete jedoch die Sichtung der historiographischen Literatur der letzten Jahre und Jahrzehnte den Ausgangspunkt für das Thema dieses Bandes. Immer wieder werden begriffliche Kontinuitäten, Einflüsse zurückliegender Autoren auf spätere und die Verpflichtung moderner Theorien gegenüber früheren Ansätzen konstatiert. Meistens geschieht dies zu Recht, doch das wissenschaftshistorische Interesse für die Innovation oder auch den theoretischen Verlust, mit einem Wort die Diskontinuität, sollte nicht vernachlässigt werden. Dabei gibt es durchaus immer wieder Behauptungen des völlig Neuen in sprachtheoretischen Publikationen, die eine Tradition und die jetzt neue, gültige Theorie, die sogenannte Vorgeschichte eines Theorems und den Beginn der eigentlichen Wissenschaft in Gegensatz zueinander stellen. Doch solche Behauptungen stammen von den Sprachwissenschaftlern selbst, sie dienen meist der Hervorhebung des eigenen Standpunkts und sind keine Ergebnisse professioneller Historiographie.
The present study approaches the Spanish postposed constructions creo Ø and creo yo ‘[p], [I] think’ from a cognitive-constructionist perspective. It is argued that both constructions are to be distinguished from one another because creo Ø has a subjective function, while in creo yo, it is the intersubjective dimension that is particularly prominent. The present investigation takes both a qualitative and a quantitative perspective. With regard to the latter, the problem of quantitative representativity is addressed. The discussion posed the question of how empirical research can feed back into theory, more precisely, into the framework of Cognitive Construction Grammar. The data to be analyzed here are retrieved from the corpora Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual and Corpus del Español.