Abstract
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.
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110889932.1Search in Google Scholar
Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel & María José Serrano. 2010. El hablante en su discurso: Expresión y omisión del sujeto de creo. Oralia 13. 7–38.10.25115/oralia.v13i.8100Search in Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1989. Constructions verbales ‘en incise’ et rection faible des verbes. Recherches sur le français parlé 9. 53–73.Search in Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire & Dominique Willems. 2007. Un nouveau regard sur les verbes faibles. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 1. 217–254.10.2143/BSL.102.1.2028205Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0013Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.). 2014a. Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.15Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García. 2014b. Applying constructional concepts to Romance languages. In Hans C. Boas & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.), Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar, 1–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.15.01boaSearch in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551789Search in Google Scholar
Cappelli, Gloria. 2007. “I reckon I know how Leonardo da Vinci must have felt…”. Epistemicity, evidentiality and English verbs of cognitive attitude. Pari: Pari Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2010. On conceptual semantics and discourse functions: The case of Spanish modal adverbs in informal conversation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 8(2). 300–320.10.1075/rcl.8.2.03corSearch in Google Scholar
Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.html.Search in Google Scholar
Corpus del Español. http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/.Search in Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, Kristin Davidse & Lieven Vandelanotte. 2010. Introduction. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 1–26. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226102Search in Google Scholar
Davidson, Brad. 1996. ‘Pragmatic weight’ and Spanish subject pronouns: The pragmatic and discourse uses of tú and yo in spoken Madrid Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 26(4). 543–565.10.1016/0378-2166(95)00063-1Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2009. Creating useful historical corpora: A Comparison of CORDE, the Corpus del Español, and the Corpus do Português, 139–168. http://hisp462.tamu.edu/Classes/352/Arts/daviesCorpus.pdf. (accessed 19 September 2014)Search in Google Scholar
De Cock, Barbara. 2014. Profiling discourse participants: Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.246Search in Google Scholar
De Knop, Sabine & Fabio Mollica. 2013. Konstruktionsgrammatik für die Beschreibung romanischer Sprachen. In Sabine De Knop, Fabio Mollica & Julia Kuhn (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik in den romanischen Sprachen, 9–23. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-03754-8Search in Google Scholar
De Knop, Sabine, Fabio Mollica & Julia Kuhn (eds.). 2013. Konstruktionsgrammatik in den romanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-03754-8Search in Google Scholar
De los Ángeles Gómez González, María. 2014. Canonical tag questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese: A discourse-functional study. In Marie-Aude Lefer & Svetlana Vogeleer (eds.), Genre- and register-related discourse features in contrast, 93–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lic.14.1.06gomSearch in Google Scholar
De Saeger, Bram. 2007. Evidencialidad y modalidad epistémica en los verbos de actitud proposicional en Español. Interlingüística 17. 268–277.Search in Google Scholar
De Saeger, Bram. 2009. Usos argumentacionales de los verbos de actitud proposicional. In Javier Valenzuela, Ana Rojo & Cristina Soriano (eds.), Trends in Cognitive Linguistics: Theoretical and applied models, 99–116. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Hubert Cuyckens. 2007. Diachronic aspects of complementation: Constructions, entrenchment and the matching problem. In Christopher M. Cains & Geoffrey Russom (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language III: Managing chaos, strategies for identifying change in English, 187–213. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198515.3.187Search in Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Anne Wichmann. 2010. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in discourse: Prosodic cues to the semantic-pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17(1). 1–28.10.1075/fol.17.1.01dehSearch in Google Scholar
Féron, Corinne. 2005. Modalisation et verbes d’opinion: Quelques remarques sur croire, cuidier et penser dans La Queste del Saint Graal. L’Information Grammaticale 104. 15–21.10.3406/igram.2005.4380Search in Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita & Marjut Johansson. 2010. Cognitive verbs in context: A contrastive analysis of English and French argumentative discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(2). 240–266.10.1075/bct.43.05fetSearch in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2013. Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 111–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0007Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay & Mary O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538.10.2307/414531Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Konstruktionsgrammatik und situationales Wissen. In Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, 343–364. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894158.343Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In Stefan Dollinger, Ute Smit, Julia Hüttner, Gunther Kaltenböck & Ursula Lutzky (eds.), Tracing English through time: Explorations in language variation, 99–114. Wien: Braumüller.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Introduction. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 1–17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709Search in Google Scholar
Hennemann, Anja. 2012. The epistemic and evidential use of Spanish modal adverbs and verbs of cognitive attitude. Folia Linguistica 46(1). 133–170.10.1515/flin.2012.5Search in Google Scholar
Hennemann, Anja. 2013a. A context-sensitive and functional approach to evidentiality in Spanish or why evidentiality needs a superordinate category. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-02066-3Search in Google Scholar
Hennemann, Anja. 2013b. Die Funktionen der Konstruktion X de que Y. In Sabine De Knop, Fabio Mollica & Julia Kuhn (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik in den romanischen Sprachen, 165–185. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206Search in Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 4, 91–124. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368828_005Search in Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Search in Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse:. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 183–219. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.08karSearch in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? Construction. Language 75. 1–33.10.2307/417472Search in Google Scholar
Kovacci, Ofelia. 1986 [1979]. Proposiciones relativas discontinuas, extraposición del relativo y la distribución de los modos en la inclusión sustantiva. In Ofelia Kovacci (ed.), Estudios de gramática española, 141–161. Buenos Aires: Hachette.Search in Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 101–124. New York: John Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Maldonado González, Concepción. 1999. Discurso directo y discurso indirecto. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 3, 3549–3595. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Search in Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2009. Re(e)volving complexity: Adding intonation. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatini (eds.), Syntactic complexity. Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 53–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.85.03reeSearch in Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001a. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics [special issue] 33(3). 383–400.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6Search in Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001b. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.5Search in Google Scholar
Posio, Pekka. 2014. Subject expression in grammaticalizing constructions: The case of Creo and Acho ‘I think’ in Spanish and Portuguese. Journal of Pragmatics 63. 5–18.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.001Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.27Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995 [1986]. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–163.10.1075/sl.26.1.05thoSearch in Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 2, 313–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.2.16thoSearch in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–74. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226102.1.29Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486500Search in Google Scholar
Urmson, James O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61. 480–496.10.1093/mind/LXI.244.480Search in Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2006. Speech or thought representation and subjectification, or on the need to think twice. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 20. 137–168.10.1075/bjl.20.10vanSearch in Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, Victoria. 2006. Construcción gramatical y valor epistémico: El caso de supongo. In Milka Villayandre Llamazares (ed.), XXXV Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Espanola de Lingüística, León, 12–15 December 2005. León: Universidad de León, Depto. de Filología Hispánica y Clásica.Search in Google Scholar
Willems, Dominique & Claire Blanche-Benveniste. 2014. A constructional corpus-based approach to ‘weak’ verbs in French. In Hans C. Boas & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.), Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar, 113–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.15.04wilSearch in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
