Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Folia Linguistica

Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae

Editor-in-Chief: Cuyckens, Hubert / Fischer, Olga / Norde, Muriel

4 Issues per year


Folia Linguistica
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.312
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.578

CiteScore 2016: 0.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.398
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.538


Folia Linguistica Historica
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.294
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.263

Online
ISSN
1614-7308
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 50, Issue 2 (Nov 2016)

Issues

A cognitive-constructionist approach to Spanish creo Ø and creo yo ‘[I] think’

Anja Hennemann
  • Corresponding author
  • Institute for Romance Languages, University of Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-11-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0017

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.

Keywords: Cognitive Construction Grammar; parenthetic verbs; Spanish; corpus analysis; quantitativity/qualitativity

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.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.Google Scholar

  • Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1989. Constructions verbales ‘en incise’ et rection faible des verbes. Recherches sur le français parlé 9. 53–73.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans C. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.). 2014a. Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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.Google Scholar

  • Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.html.

  • Corpus del Español. http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/.

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Davidson, Brad. 1996. ‘Pragmatic weight’ and Spanish subject pronouns: The pragmatic and discourse uses of and yo in spoken Madrid Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 26(4). 543–565.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)

  • De Cock, Barbara. 2014. Profiling discourse participants: Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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.Google Scholar

  • De Knop, Sabine, Fabio Mollica & Julia Kuhn (eds.). 2013. Konstruktionsgrammatik in den romanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.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.Google Scholar

  • De Saeger, Bram. 2007. Evidencialidad y modalidad epistémica en los verbos de actitud proposicional en Español. Interlingüística 17. 268–277.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Konstruktionsgrammatik und situationales Wissen. In Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, 343–364. Berlin: De Gruyter.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.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.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.Google Scholar

  • Kay, Paul & Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? Construction. Language 75. 1–33.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Nuyts, Jan. 2001a. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics [special issue] 33(3). 383–400.Google Scholar

  • Nuyts, Jan. 2001b. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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.Google Scholar

  • Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995 [1986]. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–163.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Urmson, James O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61. 480–496.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.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.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.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-04-14

Revised: 2015-12-13

Revised: 2016-04-22

Accepted: 2016-05-31

Published Online: 2016-11-08

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


Citation Information: Folia Linguistica, ISSN (Online) 1614-7308, ISSN (Print) 0165-4004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0017.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in