Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2017.11202
J. Šinkūnienė
Karin Aijmer is Professor Emerita in the Department of Languages and Literatures at the University of Gothenburg. She received her PhD in English Linguistics from Stockholm University (1972). She has served on the Scientific Committee of ICAME (International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English). She was a member of the Cambridge Grammar reference panel and a member of the Challenge panel at the ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to the Social Sciences (CASS) at the University of Lancaster 2012–2017. From 2004–2013 she served as president of the Swedish Society for the Study of English (SWESSE). She has been elected member of the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg (Kungliga Vetenskapsoch Vitterhetssamhället i Göteborg) since 1998. She is the editor of the Nordic Journal of English Studies. Her research is mainly concerned with pragmatics and discourse, in particular with epistemic modality and evidentiality, discourse markers, conversational routines and other fixed phrases. She uses corpus-based methods involving both monolingual and multilingual corpora of English and Swedish for data.
Karin Aijmer，瑞典哥德堡大学语言文学系名誉教授。1972年在斯德哥尔摩大学获得英语语言学博士学位。她曾在ICAME(国际现代和中世纪英语计算机档案)科学委员会任职。她是剑桥语法参考小组的成员，也是兰开斯特大学2012-2017年ESRC社会科学语料库方法中心(CASS)挑战小组的成员。2004年至2013年，她担任瑞典英语研究协会(SWESSE)主席。自1998年以来，她被选为哥德堡皇家艺术与科学学会(Kungliga Vetenskapsoch Vitterhetssamhället i Göteborg)的成员。她是《北欧英语研究杂志》的编辑。她的研究主要集中在语用学和语篇学，特别是在认知情态和证据性、语篇标记、会话例程和其他固定短语方面。她使用基于语料库的方法，包括英语和瑞典语的单语和多语语料库。
{"title":"Corpora and corpus linguistics revisited: an interview with Karin Aijmer","authors":"J. Šinkūnienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2017.11202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2017.11202","url":null,"abstract":"Karin Aijmer is Professor Emerita in the Department of Languages and Literatures at the University of Gothenburg. She received her PhD in English Linguistics from Stockholm University (1972). She has served on the Scientific Committee of ICAME (International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English). She was a member of the Cambridge Grammar reference panel and a member of the Challenge panel at the ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to the Social Sciences (CASS) at the University of Lancaster 2012–2017. From 2004–2013 she served as president of the Swedish Society for the Study of English (SWESSE). She has been elected member of the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg (Kungliga Vetenskapsoch Vitterhetssamhället i Göteborg) since 1998. She is the editor of the Nordic Journal of English Studies. Her research is mainly concerned with pragmatics and discourse, in particular with epistemic modality and evidentiality, discourse markers, conversational routines and other fixed phrases. She uses corpus-based methods involving both monolingual and multilingual corpora of English and Swedish for data.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"70 1","pages":"184-191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46853909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2017.11207
Carmen Maíz-Arévalo
{"title":"Flöck, Ilka. 2016. Requests in American and British English. A contrastive multi-method analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 264.","authors":"Carmen Maíz-Arévalo","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2017.11207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2017.11207","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"70 1","pages":"192-197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42277405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2017.11181
Donata Berūkštienė
Formulaicity is one of the characteristic features of legal discourse, which manifests itself not only at the level of wording, “but also in the content, structure and layout” of legal texts (Ruusila & Londroos 2016, 123). Formulaic language, which includes phrasal and prepositional verbs, idioms, collocations, lexico-grammatical associations, lexical bundles, etc., are building blocks of legal discourse shaping legal text meanings. However, up to now, far too little attention has been paid to the nature of frequently occurring “sequences of three or more words that show a statistical tendency to co-occur” (Biber & Conrad 1999, 183), i.e. lexical bundles, in different genres of legal texts. Most studies in the field of lexical bundles in legal texts have only been based on one language (e.g. Jablonkai 2009; Goźdź-Roszkowski 2011; Breeze 2013), whereas translation-oriented contrastive studies on lexical bundles are lacking. In respect of the aforementioned gaps, the aim of this pilot study is to analyse structural types of lexical bundles in court judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in English and to examine the way these structures are rendered into Lithuanian. To gain insights into the frequency and structure of lexical bundles, the present study uses the methodological guidelines of corpus linguistics. The classification of lexical bundles into structural types is based on the framework suggested by Biber et al. (1999, 2004). For the purpose of this study, a parallel corpus of court judgments was compiled comprising approximately 1 million words of original court judgments in the English language and about 8 hundred thousand words of court judgments translated into Lithuanian. Lexical bundles in this research were identified using the corpus analysis toolkit AntConc 3.4.4 (Anthony 2015). A concordance program AntPConc 1.2.0 (Anthony 2017) was employed to find Lithuanian equivalents of the most frequent lexical bundles identified in the English court judgments. The evidence from this study suggests that different structural types of lexical bundles have more or less regular equivalents in Lithuanian; however, in most cases, these equivalents tend to be shorter.
{"title":"A corpus-driven analysis of structural types of lexical bundles in court judgments in English and their translation into Lithuanian","authors":"Donata Berūkštienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2017.11181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2017.11181","url":null,"abstract":"Formulaicity is one of the characteristic features of legal discourse, which manifests itself not only at the level of wording, “but also in the content, structure and layout” of legal texts (Ruusila & Londroos 2016, 123). Formulaic language, which includes phrasal and prepositional verbs, idioms, collocations, lexico-grammatical associations, lexical bundles, etc., are building blocks of legal discourse shaping legal text meanings. However, up to now, far too little attention has been paid to the nature of frequently occurring “sequences of three or more words that show a statistical tendency to co-occur” (Biber & Conrad 1999, 183), i.e. lexical bundles, in different genres of legal texts. Most studies in the field of lexical bundles in legal texts have only been based on one language (e.g. Jablonkai 2009; Goźdź-Roszkowski 2011; Breeze 2013), whereas translation-oriented contrastive studies on lexical bundles are lacking. In respect of the aforementioned gaps, the aim of this pilot study is to analyse structural types of lexical bundles in court judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in English and to examine the way these structures are rendered into Lithuanian. To gain insights into the frequency and structure of lexical bundles, the present study uses the methodological guidelines of corpus linguistics. The classification of lexical bundles into structural types is based on the framework suggested by Biber et al. (1999, 2004). For the purpose of this study, a parallel corpus of court judgments was compiled comprising approximately 1 million words of original court judgments in the English language and about 8 hundred thousand words of court judgments translated into Lithuanian. Lexical bundles in this research were identified using the corpus analysis toolkit AntConc 3.4.4 (Anthony 2015). A concordance program AntPConc 1.2.0 (Anthony 2017) was employed to find Lithuanian equivalents of the most frequent lexical bundles identified in the English court judgments. The evidence from this study suggests that different structural types of lexical bundles have more or less regular equivalents in Lithuanian; however, in most cases, these equivalents tend to be shorter.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"70 1","pages":"7-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43462370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2017.11185
M. Carretero, Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Julia Lavid-López
This paper presents a contrastive analysis of six English evidential adverbs ending in -ly with their Spanish nearest translation equivalents, in spoken and newspaper discourse. The adverbs may be associated with varying degrees of reliability: high (clearly/claramente, evidently/evidentemente, obviously/obviamente), medium (apparently/al parecer) and low (seemingly/aparentemente, supposedly/supuestamente). The analysis is based on tokens of authentic language extracted from two contemporary corpora, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the Corpus de Referencia del Espanol Actual (CREA). The qualitative analysis focuses on the evidential functions of the adverbs and on their pragmatic interactional uses; the quantitative analysis centres on the relative frequency of type of evidential functions and the clausal position of the adverbs. The results uncover a number of differences between the English adverbs and their Spanish correlates and also between the two discourse types. Practically all the adverbs are strongly specialized in expressing either indirect-inferential or indirect-reportative evidentiality. English obviously and Spanish evidentemente show a high frequency of cases of loss of evidential meaning due to pragmaticalization, specifically in spoken discourse. Regarding position, the English adverbs are more frequent in medial clausal position, while some Spanish adverbs are often found in the more prominent parenthetical position.
{"title":"Adverbs as evidentials: an English-Spanish contrastive analysis of twelve adverbs in spoken and newspaper discourse","authors":"M. Carretero, Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Julia Lavid-López","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2017.11185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2017.11185","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a contrastive analysis of six English evidential adverbs ending in -ly with their Spanish nearest translation equivalents, in spoken and newspaper discourse. The adverbs may be associated with varying degrees of reliability: high (clearly/claramente, evidently/evidentemente, obviously/obviamente), medium (apparently/al parecer) and low (seemingly/aparentemente, supposedly/supuestamente). The analysis is based on tokens of authentic language extracted from two contemporary corpora, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the Corpus de Referencia del Espanol Actual (CREA). The qualitative analysis focuses on the evidential functions of the adverbs and on their pragmatic interactional uses; the quantitative analysis centres on the relative frequency of type of evidential functions and the clausal position of the adverbs. The results uncover a number of differences between the English adverbs and their Spanish correlates and also between the two discourse types. Practically all the adverbs are strongly specialized in expressing either indirect-inferential or indirect-reportative evidentiality. English obviously and Spanish evidentemente show a high frequency of cases of loss of evidential meaning due to pragmaticalization, specifically in spoken discourse. Regarding position, the English adverbs are more frequent in medial clausal position, while some Spanish adverbs are often found in the more prominent parenthetical position.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"70 1","pages":"32-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46647032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2017.11191
Carmen Maíz-Arévalo
The aim of this paper is to investigate ‘I promise’ and its counterpart in (Peninsular) Spanish prometo. After briefly revisiting the theoretical debate on performativity and performative verbs, the paper adopts a corpus-based approach to quantify the main uses of ‘I promise’ in both languages. This contrastive analysis has an ultimate didactic purpose, since these verbs can raise problems of understanding and use for Spanish learners of English as a foreign language (EFL henceforth) and of translation studies. In order to carry out this analysis, the British National Corpus and the Corpus de Referencia del Espanol Actual were used, manually fine-graining the initial automatic search. To make both datasets comparable, only the oral and the fiction sections were considered since they are both shared by the two corpora. Interestingly, during the analysis there has also emerged an unexpected result which seems to be pointing out to the beginning of a linguistic change in Spanish. Thus, it can be observed that there is an emergent use in Spanish of the verb amenazar (‘to threaten’), sometimes with the action function of “promising”. This emergent use seems to be especially frequent in computer-mediated communication (e.g. blogs, forums, etc.) but it is still extremely rare in English.
{"title":"‘A promise is a promise… but what about threats?’: an English-Spanish contrastive analysis of the verbs promise-prometer and threaten-amenazar","authors":"Carmen Maíz-Arévalo","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2017.11191","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2017.11191","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to investigate ‘I promise’ and its counterpart in (Peninsular) Spanish prometo. After briefly revisiting the theoretical debate on performativity and performative verbs, the paper adopts a corpus-based approach to quantify the main uses of ‘I promise’ in both languages. This contrastive analysis has an ultimate didactic purpose, since these verbs can raise problems of understanding and use for Spanish learners of English as a foreign language (EFL henceforth) and of translation studies. In order to carry out this analysis, the British National Corpus and the Corpus de Referencia del Espanol Actual were used, manually fine-graining the initial automatic search. To make both datasets comparable, only the oral and the fiction sections were considered since they are both shared by the two corpora. Interestingly, during the analysis there has also emerged an unexpected result which seems to be pointing out to the beginning of a linguistic change in Spanish. Thus, it can be observed that there is an emergent use in Spanish of the verb amenazar (‘to threaten’), sometimes with the action function of “promising”. This emergent use seems to be especially frequent in computer-mediated communication (e.g. blogs, forums, etc.) but it is still extremely rare in English.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"70 1","pages":"79-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42677778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2017.11199
Mirna Varga, Tanja Gradečak-Erdeljić
As a mandatory constituent of academic writing, citation allows writers to acknowledge other scholarsʼ work and to position their research against it, showing thus both contribution to previous knowledge and research novelty (Hyland 2004). Previous research has documented not only cross-disciplinary (Hyland 2004) but also cross-cultural variations, with a general tendency of Anglo-American writers to use more citations than writers of some other cultural backgrounds (Hyland 2005; Mur Duenas 2009). By exploring the frequency, preferred types, and reporting structures of citations in two comparable sub-corpora of research articles in applied linguistics in English and Croatian, the present study aimed to provide an insight into the patterns of cross-cultural similarities and differences in the use of academic citation. The corpus comprised 32 research articles that were sampled from the representative English- and Croatian-medium publications in applied linguistics and analyzed manually. The extracted instances of citations were categorized according to the pre-established taxonomies of the citation types (Swales, 1990) and reporting structures in academic writing (Thomson & Tribble 2001). The frequency analysis showed that the English writers used more citations as opposed to the Croatian writers, which is in line with previous cross-cultural research on the use of citations (Flottum, Dahl & Kinn 2006; Mur Duenas 2009). In both sub-corpora writers used more non-integral than integral citations, with the highest frequencies reported in the Introduction section of research articles. The overall findings point to the saliency of the congruent types of reporting structures in both citation formats across the two sub-corpora, with the human subjects being most frequently used in integral citations and non-reporting being the most frequent reporting structure in non-integral citations. However, in non-integral citations English writers used non-human subjects at a significantly higher frequency than Croatian writers, which suggests that in the English citations investigated more importance is placed on research activities than human agents. Whereas similarities in the use of citations between English and Croatian writers may be accounted for by the congruent disciplinary variable, the differences seem to be related to the specifics of a wider socio-cultural background in which academic writing is embedded.
{"title":"English and Croatian citation practices in research articles in applied linguistics: a corpus-based study","authors":"Mirna Varga, Tanja Gradečak-Erdeljić","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2017.11199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2017.11199","url":null,"abstract":"As a mandatory constituent of academic writing, citation allows writers to acknowledge other scholarsʼ work and to position their research against it, showing thus both contribution to previous knowledge and research novelty (Hyland 2004). Previous research has documented not only cross-disciplinary (Hyland 2004) but also cross-cultural variations, with a general tendency of Anglo-American writers to use more citations than writers of some other cultural backgrounds (Hyland 2005; Mur Duenas 2009). By exploring the frequency, preferred types, and reporting structures of citations in two comparable sub-corpora of research articles in applied linguistics in English and Croatian, the present study aimed to provide an insight into the patterns of cross-cultural similarities and differences in the use of academic citation. The corpus comprised 32 research articles that were sampled from the representative English- and Croatian-medium publications in applied linguistics and analyzed manually. The extracted instances of citations were categorized according to the pre-established taxonomies of the citation types (Swales, 1990) and reporting structures in academic writing (Thomson & Tribble 2001). The frequency analysis showed that the English writers used more citations as opposed to the Croatian writers, which is in line with previous cross-cultural research on the use of citations (Flottum, Dahl & Kinn 2006; Mur Duenas 2009). In both sub-corpora writers used more non-integral than integral citations, with the highest frequencies reported in the Introduction section of research articles. The overall findings point to the saliency of the congruent types of reporting structures in both citation formats across the two sub-corpora, with the human subjects being most frequently used in integral citations and non-reporting being the most frequent reporting structure in non-integral citations. However, in non-integral citations English writers used non-human subjects at a significantly higher frequency than Croatian writers, which suggests that in the English citations investigated more importance is placed on research activities than human agents. Whereas similarities in the use of citations between English and Croatian writers may be accounted for by the congruent disciplinary variable, the differences seem to be related to the specifics of a wider socio-cultural background in which academic writing is embedded.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"70 1","pages":"153-183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48230350","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10373
J. Šinkūnienė
The aim of the present paper is to investigate the frequency and distribution patterns as well as the spectrum of modal meanings conveyed by the Lithuanian modal verb of possibility galėti ‘can/could/may/might’ in academic Lithuanian. The study is based on Corpus Academicum Lithuanicum (www.coralit.lt), a specialized synchronic corpus of written academic Lithuanian (roughly 9 million words). In order to allow a disciplinary comparison, the paper analyses the use of this modal verb in academic texts from three science fields: the humanities, the biomedical sciences and the technological sciences. Quantitative and qualitative approaches are employed alongside corpus-based analysis to reveal the ways in which this modal verb of possibility is used in academic language. The first part of the paper investigates the frequency patterns of various forms of galėti ‘can/could/may/might’ in the three science fields. The second part looks at the variety of meanings this modal verb can convey in Lithuanian specialised language. The results show that there is a fairly similar distribution of this modal verb across different science fields. In terms of its semantic functional capacities, galėti ‘can/could/may/might’ is used to convey all three types of modality (epistemic, deontic and dynamic), however, the most frequent use in Lithuanian academic discourse seems to be that of dynamic modality.
{"title":"The modal verb galėti ʻcan/could/may/mightʼ in academic Lithuanian: distribution, frequency and semantic properties","authors":"J. Šinkūnienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10373","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the present paper is to investigate the frequency and distribution patterns as well as the spectrum of modal meanings conveyed by the Lithuanian modal verb of possibility galėti ‘can/could/may/might’ in academic Lithuanian. The study is based on Corpus Academicum Lithuanicum (www.coralit.lt), a specialized synchronic corpus of written academic Lithuanian (roughly 9 million words). In order to allow a disciplinary comparison, the paper analyses the use of this modal verb in academic texts from three science fields: the humanities, the biomedical sciences and the technological sciences. Quantitative and qualitative approaches are employed alongside corpus-based analysis to reveal the ways in which this modal verb of possibility is used in academic language. The first part of the paper investigates the frequency patterns of various forms of galėti ‘can/could/may/might’ in the three science fields. The second part looks at the variety of meanings this modal verb can convey in Lithuanian specialised language. The results show that there is a fairly similar distribution of this modal verb across different science fields. In terms of its semantic functional capacities, galėti ‘can/could/may/might’ is used to convey all three types of modality (epistemic, deontic and dynamic), however, the most frequent use in Lithuanian academic discourse seems to be that of dynamic modality.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"205-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42225651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/Klbt.2016.10370
T. Mortelmans
The present study deals with the seem-type verbs schijnen and scheinen in Dutch and German. On the basis of an in-depth analysis of spoken and written corpus material, the construction types these verbs typically appear in as well as their function and meaning are analysed. As seem-type verbs often develop into evidential markers (this is the case in e.g. English, French and Spanish), I will particularly concentrate on evidential uses (and the syntactic patterns that are associated with those uses). The study will lay bare important differences between German, Belgian Dutch and Netherlandic Dutch regarding both verbs. Moreover, the distinction between spoken and written language will be shown to play a crucial role with respect to the construction types found. Finally, the fact that the verbs exhibit different constructional preferences will be linked to different semantic properties as well.
{"title":"Indirect evidentiality in Dutch and German: a contrastive corpus study of the seem-type verbs schijnen and scheinen","authors":"T. Mortelmans","doi":"10.15388/Klbt.2016.10370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/Klbt.2016.10370","url":null,"abstract":"The present study deals with the seem-type verbs schijnen and scheinen in Dutch and German. On the basis of an in-depth analysis of spoken and written corpus material, the construction types these verbs typically appear in as well as their function and meaning are analysed. As seem-type verbs often develop into evidential markers (this is the case in e.g. English, French and Spanish), I will particularly concentrate on evidential uses (and the syntactic patterns that are associated with those uses). The study will lay bare important differences between German, Belgian Dutch and Netherlandic Dutch regarding both verbs. Moreover, the distinction between spoken and written language will be shown to play a crucial role with respect to the construction types found. Finally, the fact that the verbs exhibit different constructional preferences will be linked to different semantic properties as well.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"121-152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44132791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10375
Miriam Thegel
The principal aim of this study is to examine the Spanish modal verb deber ‘must’ in its deontic readings, relating it to the notions of evidentiality and intersubjectivity. Deber has often been compared to the modal verb tener que ‘have to’ and described in rather vague terms, for example as an expression of weak, internal obligation, but this paper proposes that it is better understood as an intersubjective verb. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses have been carried out, with a special focus on the in-depth qualitative study. It will be shown that deontic deber can convey evidential meanings when used in the conditional form. First, it can refer to a norm shared between the speaker and the hearer, and, second, it can convey an inferential process, a conclusion presented by the speaker, which is based on shared information, available to a larger group (or all) of the interlocutors. Evidentiality is regarded here as an intersubjective strategy, used when the speaker wants to reach consensus, arguing for the most reasonable, morally defensible way to act. Thus, this study also offers a new perspective of evidentiality, looking at this notion in interaction with deontic modality instead of epistemic modality, which is usually the case.
{"title":"Intersubjective strategies in deontic modality: evidential functions of Spanish deber ‘must’","authors":"Miriam Thegel","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10375","url":null,"abstract":"The principal aim of this study is to examine the Spanish modal verb deber ‘must’ in its deontic readings, relating it to the notions of evidentiality and intersubjectivity. Deber has often been compared to the modal verb tener que ‘have to’ and described in rather vague terms, for example as an expression of weak, internal obligation, but this paper proposes that it is better understood as an intersubjective verb. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses have been carried out, with a special focus on the in-depth qualitative study. It will be shown that deontic deber can convey evidential meanings when used in the conditional form. First, it can refer to a norm shared between the speaker and the hearer, and, second, it can convey an inferential process, a conclusion presented by the speaker, which is based on shared information, available to a larger group (or all) of the interlocutors. Evidentiality is regarded here as an intersubjective strategy, used when the speaker wants to reach consensus, arguing for the most reasonable, morally defensible way to act. Thus, this study also offers a new perspective of evidentiality, looking at this notion in interaction with deontic modality instead of epistemic modality, which is usually the case.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"246-266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42188600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10372
Anna Ruskan
The current study focuses on the epistemic qualifications realised by the English adjective and adverb likely and its equivalents in Lithuanian panasu ‘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 ParaCorpENaLTaEN. 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 panasu ‘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.
目前的研究集中在英语形容词和副词likely及其在立陶宛语panasu中的对等词“可能，似乎”和tikėtina“可信的，可能的”所实现的认识论资格上，这两个词来源于比较和信念的语义领域。本研究的目的是在频率、句法特征(补语谓语、状语)、功能、搭配特征和语篇类型(学术、报纸)等方面识别标记语的功能异同。英语和立陶宛语数据取自单语语料库，即当代美国英语语料库(COCA)、当代立陶宛语语料库(CCLL)、立陶宛学术语料库(CorALit)和双向平行语料库ParaCorpENaLTaEN。定量和定性研究结果表明，最接近的跨语言CTP和状语对等物是可能的，tikėtina“可信的，可能的”，因为它们在正式语域(学术、报纸话语)中最常见，并显示出相似的搭配概况和使用背景。在有明确证据和论证的情况下，它们可能获得证据功能。虽然CTP和副词panasu“likely, it seems”与“likely”和tikėtina“believable, likely”在表达作者的概率程度上有相似之处，但由于其与相似性和表象的原意的概念联系，它表现出与后者不同的语义特征。研究表明，在现代英语和立陶宛语中，源自比较语义域的标记在功能分布上是如何变化的，并介绍了它们源自不同语义域的功能等价物。
{"title":"Epistemic qualifications of the English marker likely and its equivalents in Lithuanian","authors":"Anna Ruskan","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10372","url":null,"abstract":"The current study focuses on the epistemic qualifications realised by the English adjective and adverb likely and its equivalents in Lithuanian panasu ‘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 ParaCorpENaLTaEN. 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 panasu ‘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.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"179-204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42327145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：