Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299571192
CITATIONS READS
0 103
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Semantics / Pragmatics Interface and the Resolution of Interpretive Mismatches View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Aoife Ahern on 08 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
John Benjamins Publishing Company
1. Introduction
Ever since the publication of Chomskys early work (1959,1965), the study of lan-
guage has largely been approached from a mentalist perspective. Still, cognitive
theoretical models differ in their conceptions of the nature of linguistic knowledge
and language acquisition, and in their descriptions of the operations involved in
online language processing and use. Among others, Lakoff (1974) developed an
alternative approach to generative grammar; contra Chomsky, Lakoff argued that
the form of language could not be studied independently of its communicative
function; language form and language use were the product of general cognitive
principles and general learning capacities.
This suggests that two qualitatively different types of processes are at stake in lan-
guage use. They are independent and theoretically separable, although they must
necessarily interact. Linguistic meaning is rule-based and mandatory, but it is
also underspecified; therefore, probabilistic pragmatic processes are needed to
provide the exact referents and the illocutionary force of utterances, as well as to
infer speaker meaning and epistemic stance (Paradis 2001/2009). This approach
has been adopted by cognitive pragmatic theories such as Sperber and Wilsons
(1986/95) Relevance Theory (RT).
Sperber and Wilson emphasize that language is used to express not only rep-
resentations of the world, but also metarepresentations: representations of other
representations. Thus, a metarepresentation consists of a higher-order represen-
tation, in which a lower-order representation is embedded. Evidentiality can be
seen as a subclass of linguistic metarepresentation, conveying the attribution of
the propositional content to a specific information source, or type of source (e.g.
sensory perception, hearsay, conjecture).
Building on RT proposals, this paper describes two different mechanisms
that are available in Spanish, as well as other languages, for the configuration of
metarepresentational uses. The first mechanism is purely semantic: this is the case
of the Subjunctive (subj) mood, which encodes, precisely, an indicator that the
proposition is expressed as a metarepresentation (Ahern 2004,2006). The second
mechanism is located at the interface between semantics and pragmatics, and can
be observed in the quotative interpretations that the Imperfect Indicative (imp-
ind) receives under certain discourse-contextual conditions. Unlike the subj
mood, the imp-ind is not inherently metarepresentational: evidential impind is
closely related to extreme cases of aspectual coercion, where integration of infor-
mation from different cognitive language modules (i.e., linguistic and pragmatic)
is at play in the process of utterance interpretation.
Our aims are twofold: on the one hand, we intend to characterize the two mech-
anisms defined above, and to describe the way they operate in two specific types of
constructions: although-concessives and if-conditionals in Spanish. In both cases,
certain contextual effects are achieved through mood alternation, which are linked
to the interpretation of metarepresentational and/or evidential content.
On the other hand, we attempt to compile empirical evidence of the cogni-
tive processing load that the interpretation of the different types of metarepre-
sentational content imposes both in advanced L2 learners and in L1 speakers. We
obtained data from two groups of adult advanced (CEFR B2-C1 levels) learners
of L2 Spanish: an L1 French group (n=50) and L1 English group (n=40); in addi-
tion to a control group of native speakers of European Spanish (n=35). A 30-item
multiple choice task was set, testing the ability to interpret effects on sentence
meaning of indicative/subjunctive mood contrasts in conditional (20 items) and
concessive (10 items) clauses.1
The paper is organized as follows. In Section2, we discuss the relationship
between linguistic metarepresentation and evidentiality, from the point of view
of RT; we also develop our background assumptions on linguistic meaning (and
more specifically, on the type of meaning mood, tense and aspect encode) and on
how linguistic and extralinguistic information interact during the interpretation
of utterances. In Section3 and Section4, we describe the mechanisms through
which subj and imp-ind can articulate metarepresentational content; both sec-
tions are completed with the presentation of empirical data related to both L2 and
L1. Finally, Section5 contains the discussion and conclusions.
2. Theoretical background
A fundamental distinction for the analysis of mood and tense upon which the
present study is based is that of conceptual and procedural meaning. Within RT,
this differentiation has been established between, on the one hand, linguistic
expressions that represent concepts, conceptual meaning and, on the other hand,
procedural expressions, which encode instructions or indications that guide
the inferential processes of utterance interpretation (Blakemore 1987; Wilson
and Sperber 1993; Escandell, Leonetti and Ahern 2011). Procedural expressions
encode computations over conceptual representations, and these computational
instructions are not modifiable in contrast to the flexibility that characterises
conceptual meaning but remain consistent across interpretations. Thus, proce-
dural analyses of the semantics of mood, tense, determiners and certain discourse
markers have proposed that they act as constraints on inferential processes.
For instance, the Spanish subjunctive has been analysed as an indicator of a
particular kind of metarepresentation, i.e., that the proposition is expressed as
an instance of interpretive use: it represents an attributed utterance or thought,
or possible utterance, by virtue of a relationship of resemblance (Ahern 2006).
This piece of semantically encoded information is used as input to inferential
processes in which assumptions from the discourse and extralinguistic context
are integrated to lead to either one of the two possible readings that obtain
from this mood in Spanish: irrealis or presuppositional, as explained further in
Section3.1 below.
The perspective adopted in the present study, and in general within RT, consists in
considering grammatical expressions like mood and tense as encoding a particular
kind of meaning, i.e., procedural meaning, as just explained. Procedural meaning
has been described as the encoding of instructions for computations over concep-
tual representations, leading to constraints on the inferences that arise in utterance
interpretation. In that sense, since procedural meaning is not represented concep-
tually, yet is conveyed by way of linguistic features that feed into LF, procedural
expressions can be considered to constitute interpretable features.
Mood, tense and grammatical aspect can also be described, in UG terms,
as interpretable features. However, language use and utterance interpretation are
interface phenomena, where information from different systems is integrated.
More specifically, metarepresentations may be linguistically encoded, but in any
case their interpretation in specific environments depends, to varying degrees, on
pragmatic enrichment processes (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995).
3. Concessives
Despite the fact that Spanish concessive clauses may be introduced by a variety of
connectives, aunque is probably the most frequently used concessive connective
and is the one considered in the present study. Aunque-clauses in Spanish consti-
tute an interesting environment for analyzing the effects of indicative-subjunctive
mood alternation, since both moods are grammatical, and therefore lead to dif-
ferences albeit subtle ones in interpretation.
This utterance exemplifies a case in which knowledge of the world would generally
be sufficient to determine a presuppositional reading based on the presence of the
subj in the concessive clause, given that it will be assumed that the interlocutors
take for granted the fact that the addressee is the speakers brother. However, there
are of course possible contexts in which an irrealis reading would be obtained: for
2. Despite overall similarities in the verbal mood systems between French and Spanish, con-
cessive clauses in French do not allow mood alternation as occurs in the items studied here.
For further relevant details of mood in these two languages, see Ahern, Amens-Pons and
Guijarro-Fuentes (2014).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AND AND AND AND Y
L French: Item difficulty value (mean) L English: Item difficulty value (mean)
Control: Item difficulty value (mean)
The only statistically significant differences found in the mean difficulty levels
between the learner groups were related to items 27 and 28, which included
concessives in imp-ind, in which the English L1 group were at a disadvantage
(M=0.80, SD=0.26) in comparison with the French L1 group (M=0.88, SD=3.2);
t(88)=0.142, p=0.158.
Regarding the differences among the responses of the control group versus
those of the L2 Spanish learners, it was found that the native speaker group showed
greater variability in their responses than the learner groups in the items with subj
concessive clauses items 21 and 22; 23 and 29; 26 and 30. As can be observed in
the bar graphs of Figure 1, the control group chose the expected responses with
equal or lower frequency than the learner groups. This variability, we assume,
may be due to the different processing tendencies of L1 users versus L2ers: in
the L1, a wider range of contextual assumptions can intervene in interpreting
mood choice in these constructions (for instance, as illustrated in Example(2)
above), whereas L2 speakers may limit their interpretation by applying some form
of memorized rule about the meaning and use of each verbal mood.3 Our findings
also suggest further research focusing on the time required by L2 Spanish learners
to process verbal mood alternation in similar constructions is necessary, since it
would provide more solid evidence regarding the differences detected among the
L1 and L2 groups in the present study.
3. To confirm our hypotheses, a follow-up, qualitative task was designed, in which the partici-
pants (a group of native speakers) were asked to describe their interpretations of a set of con-
textualized concessive utterances. Our results corroborate the idea that natives tend to access a
rich array of contextual hypotheses when interpreting subjunctive forms in concessive environ-
ments. For details of this task, see Ahern, Amens-Pons and Guijarro-Fuentes (forthcoming).
4. Conditionals
Moeschler (1994,1998) and Nicolle (1997,1998) were the first to describe tenses
as procedural devices: they impose restrictions on the determination of tempo-
ral reference, as well as on the inferential processing of representations of states
and events. Contrastingly, eventualities were described as conceptual (Moeschler
1994): they have logical properties, are easily brought to consciousness and add to
the propositional content of the utterance.
It is assumed here that lexical categories can encode conceptual and/or proce-
dural meaning, while functional categories are always procedural (Escandell-Vidal
and Leonetti 2000,2011). Within this framework, grammatical aspect (unlike
eventuality types) is considered procedural, because it is, like tense, a functional
category. Thus, tense and grammatical aspect are procedural items that add to the
propositional content of utterances. Both ideas are compatible: the potential con-
tribution of an expression to the interpretation process is not constrained by the
type of linguistic meaning (conceptual or procedural) encoded in the expression
(Wilson and Sperber 1993).4
Building on Escandell-Vidal and Leonetti (2000,2011), we consider rigidity
as a basic property of procedural meaning (in contrast with conceptual meaning,
which is always adaptable and coercible).5 Tense and grammatical aspect are com-
plementary and do not conflict with each other. On the contrary, eventualities may
be subject to coercion in order to solve interpretive conflicts arising as a result of
combining dissimilar semantic notions, such as imperfective aspect and telicity.
Nevertheless, tenses do not carry specific information about how the proce-
dural instruction they contain may be accomplished (Leonetti 2004): there are,
indeed, different ways of satisfying the interpretive constraints of a procedural
expression. Thus, the stability of the semantic features of tenses contrasts with
their extreme adaptability at discourse level. This is easily accounted for by the RT
linguistic underdeterminacy thesis (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995; Smith 1990):
tenses can only locate temporal reference in a very general way, whereas establish-
ing concrete reference is a matter of contextual enrichment. The changing effects
associated with the use of each tense in different discourse environments are nat-
urally seen as distinct interpretations, stemming from the combination of a single
meaning with dissimilar contextual assumptions.
4. See Vetters and De Mulder (2000) and Vetters (2003) for a different view.
5. See Moeschler (2002) and Moeschler, Grisot and Cartoni (2012) for an alternative claim.
In informal language, imp-ind can also be found in the consequent of irrealis con-
ditionals, instead of cond. Such alternation is typically connected to the expres-
sion of the speakers attitude: imp-ind adds an effect of emotional closeness (with
varying nuances depending on the context), due to the absence of the [+posteri-
ority] feature that is linked to the meaning of cond (Amens-Pons 2015).
In the antecedent of if-conditionals, imp-ind can have two different types of
interpretation: habitual and quotative-echoic, illustrated below in (8) and (9). The
choice between the two interpretations of the imp-ind is related to the tense used
in the consequent (imp or cond), but it also (and crucially) depends on the predi-
cate type and contextual assumptions. The antecedent of habitual conditionals
denotes stable or iterated situations in the past, while quotative-echoic condition-
als locate attributed past speech events. Therefore, both are factual, but in a clearly
different way:
(8) If+imp-ind+imd-ind Habitual interpretation.
Yo siempre tena vrtigo Si me trataban con medicina natural, yo creo que
era una medicina equivocada.
I always had vertigo IfI was being treated (imp-ind) with natural medicine,
I think it was (imp-ind) the wrong medicine.
(9) If+imp-ind+cond (or imp-ind) Quotative-echoic interpretation.
El programa electoral del Partido Ecologista estableca que si llegaba al gobi-
erno acabara (acababa) con la energa nuclear en menos de 20 aos.
The electoral programme of the Ecologist Party established that if they arrived
(imp-ind) to the government they would finish (finish imp-ind) nuclear energy
in less than 20 years
The electoral programme of the Ecologist Party established that if they got
into government they would put an end to nuclear energy in less than 20 years
In the previous section, it was seen that habitual readings of the imp-ind are much
more widespread than quotative-echoic readings. Conditional environments are
no exception: quotative-echoic uses of the imp-ind in if-clauses need a much
richer array of contextual cues. Such readings are often highlighted by linguistic
means, not unlike those found in other quotative-echoic cases; typically, the ante-
cedent involves (a) a unique telic event in imp-ind, (b) the tense receives a pro-
spective interpretation, (c) the utterances contain events that can be planned, and
(d) the imp-ind is not in the first or in the second person (Amens-Pons 2015).
In the consequent of quotative-echoic if-constructions, use of the imp-ind
instead of cond is a frequent option in oral language, with the same effect of emo-
tional closeness that is found in irrealis cases (with imp-subj in the antecedent).
By contrast, the imp-ind is compulsory in the consequent of habitual if-condi-
tionals. Thus, in irrealis and quotative-echoic environments, using an imp-ind in
the consequent adds a supplementary effect to the interpretation. Conversely, in
habitual conditionals, such effect does not exist, because there is no possibility of
alternation (only the imp-ind is grammatical).
8. Neither French nor English allow mood alternation in the antecedent of if-conditional con-
structions; use of imp-ind in the consequent (instead of cond) is also much more restricted in
French and English than in Spanish. Therefore, French and English have parallel possibilities,
which are different from those existing in Spanish.
Table2 displays the distribution of the conditional items in the task, including
an example of each item type. The results obtained are shown in Figure2.
Quotative-echoic
government they would put an end to nuclear energy in less than 20 years.
Items 58 If+imp-ind+imp-ind
Era una situacin muy comprometida: si aprobaba aquella ley se creaba un conflicto con
todos los dems pases; si no la aprobaba, se creaba un conflicto con la extrema derecha
republicana.
It was a no-win situation: if they approved that law, a conflict would be created (imp-
ind) with all the other countries; if they didnt approve it, a conflict was created with the
Republican far right.
Items 912 If+imp-ind+imp-ind
Habitual
Yo siempre tena vrtigo Si me trataban con medicina natural, yo creo que era una
medicina equivocada.
I always had vertigo If they treated me with natural medicines, I think it was the
wrong medicines.
Items 1316 If+imp-subj+cond
Me gusta mucho la poltica, tengo una gran vocacin. Por eso, si le dijera que me voy a
retirar pronto, le engaara.
I like politics a lot, its my vocation. Thats why, if I said Im going to retire soon, Id be
deceiving you.
Irrealis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
to to to to to
L French: Item difficulty value (mean) L English: Item difficulty value (mean)
Control: Item difficulty value (mean)
In the L2 groups, the effect of using imp-ind instead of cond in the consequent
was not stable: in the quotative-echoic imp-ind construction, there is no signifi-
cant difference for any of the experimental groups; the utilization of imp instead
of cond does not significantly alter the accuracy of the answers. Yet a significant
increase in difficulty is found for the utterances with irrealis imp-subj: conse-
quents with imp-ind are harder for both groups (for the L1 French group, if items
1316 are compared to items 1720, p=0.046 in the T-Tests; for the L1 English
group, p=0.005).
In the control group, changing the tense of the consequent does not modify
the accuracy of the answers. However, native speakers do not always give correct
answers: 100% accuracy is only approached for items 1320, that is, for the groups
of items that dont involve any type of coercion.
In contrast, the fact that both groups of learners have little difficulty with
items 912 (which do involve coercion) might be due to the type of coercion itself
(see Section4.2), although further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis.
9. The L1 English speakers self-reported the largest amount of time to complete the task
(mean 41 minutes); the French L1 group (mean 38 minutes), used a slightly, though not signifi-
cantly, shorter amount of time. Finally, the Spanish L1 control group used significantly less time
(mean 26 minutes) than the groups of learners.
those that analyse the development of the ability to interpret mood alternation in
different populations, including children and adolescents, as well as L2 learner
groups with other L1s besides those examined herein.
References
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria and Manuel Leonetti. 2003. On the quotative readings of Spanish
Imperfecto. Cuadernos de Lingstica X: 135154.
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria and Manuel Leonetti. 2000. Categoras funcionales y semntica pro-
cedimental. In Cien aos de investigacin semntica: De Michel Bral a la actualidad, vol.
1, ed. by Marcos Martnez, et al., 363378. Madrid: Coord. Clsicas.
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria and Manuel Leonetti. 2011. On the Rigidity of Procedural Meaning.
In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel
Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds.), 81103. Leiden: Brill.doi:10.1163/9780857240941
Escandell, Victoria, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds.). 2011. Procedural Meaning: Prob-
lems and Perspectives. Leiden: Brill.doi:10.1163/9780857240941
Gili Gaya, Samuel. 1943. Curso superior de sintaxis espaola. Barcelona: Biblograf.
Ifantidou, Elly 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
doi:
10.1075/pbns.86
Lakoff, George. 1974. Dialogues with George Lakoff. In Discussing language, ed. by Herman
Parrett, 151178. The Hague: Mouton.
Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Por qu el imperfecto es anafrico. In El pretrito imperfecto, ed. by
Luis Garca Fernndez and Bruno Camus Bergareche, 481510. Madrid: Gredos.
Moeschler, Jacques. 1994. Anaphore et dixis temporelles. Smantique et pragmatique de la
rfrence temporelle. In Langage et pertinence. Rfrence temporelle, anaphore, connecteurs
et mtaphore, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, et al., 39105. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de
Nancy.
Moeschler, Jacques. 1998. Pragmatique de la rfrence temporelle. In Le temps des vne-
ments, ed. by Jacques Moeschler, 157180. Paris: Kim.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2002. Pragmatics and linguistic encoding. Evidence from the conceptual/
procedural distinction.Unpublished manuscript.
<http://www.unige.ch/lettres/linguistique/moeschler> (January 2010).
Moeschler Jacques, Cristina Grisotet and Bruno Cartoni. 2012. Jusquo les temps verbaux
sont-ils procduraux? Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Franaise 30: 119139.
Montrul, Silvina and Roumyana Slabakova. 2002. On aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish. In
BUCLD 26 Proceedings, ed. by Barbora Skarabela, et al. (eds.), 63142. Somerville: MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Montrul, Silvina and Roumyana Slabakova. 2003. Competence similarities between natives
and near-native speakers: An investigation of the Preterit/Imperfect contrast in Spanish.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 351398.doi:10.1017/S0272263103000159
Nicolle, Steve. 1997. A Relevance-theoretic account of be going to. Journal of Linguistics 33:
355377.doi:10.1017/S0022226797006567
Nicolle, Steve. 1998. A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguis-
tics 9 (1): 135.doi:10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.1
Olmos, Susana and Aoife Ahern. 2009. Contrast and propositional attitude. A relevance-theo-
retic analysis of contrast connectives in Spanish and English. Lingua 119 (1): 5166.
doi:
10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.001
Paradis, Michel. 2001/2009. Cerebral division of labour in verbal communication. In Cog-
nition and Pragmatics, ed. by Dominiek Sandra, Jan-Ola stman and Jeff Verschueren,
5377. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.doi:10.1075/hoph.3.04par
Smith, Neil. 1990. Observations on the pragmatics of tense. University College London Work-
ing Papers in Linguistics 2: 8294.
Sorace, Antonella and Francesca Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of
Italian. Second Language Research 22: 339368.doi:10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
Sorace, Antonella. 2011. Pinning down the concept of interface in bilingualism. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism 1: 133.doi:10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
Sperber, Danand and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sthioul, Bertrand. 1998. Temps verbaux et point de vue. In Le temps des vnements, ed. by
Jacques Moeschler, 197220. Paris: Kim.
Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria and Antonella Sorace. 2006. Differentiating Interfaces: L2 performance in
syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In Proceedings of the 30th Boston Uni-
versity Conference on Language Development, ed. by David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia,
and Colleen Zaller, 653664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Vetters, Carl and Walter De Mulder. 2000. Pass simple et imparfait: contenus conceptual et
procdural. Cahiers Chronos 6: 1336.
Vetters, Carl. 2003. Laspect global: un effet secondaire dun contenu procdural? Cahiers
Chronos 11: 113131.
Vicente, Begoa. 2010. The role of pragmatic inferencing in compositional semantics. In
Explicit Communication: Robyn Carstons Pragmatics, ed. by Esther Romero and Beln
Soria, 5874. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
White, Lydia. 2009. Grammatical Theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition, ed. by William Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 4967. Bingley: Emerald.
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and Relevance. Lingua 90: 125.
doi:
10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5