Cover not available
Part of
Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Constructional Approaches to Language 15] 2014
► pp. 113–138

Chapter 4. A constructional corpus-based approach to ‘weak’ verbs in French

ORCID logo | University of Ghent, Belgium
 | University of Provence Aix-Marseille I, France
‘Weak’ verbs, also known as ‘parenthetical’, ‘evidential’ or ‘epistemic’ verbs, have interested linguists and philosophers for many years. In recent analyses they are treated mainly from a pragmatic point of view, and, through a process of advanced grammaticalization, they are often grouped together with adverbs. But fine-grained linguistic analyses are still lacking. In this contribution, we present the main results of a usage-based syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analysis of the three most frequent ‘weak’ verbs used in the first person singular in modern French: je crois (‘I believe’), je pense (‘I think’), and je trouve (‘I find’). We argue that those verbs do not undergo a change of category but simply remain verbs and that they can be fruitfully described in a constructional framework. These ‘weak’ verbs, particularly frequent in spoken discourse, occur in a cluster of three related structures, revealing the same semantic meaning of ‘mitigation’. Other verbs can enter one of those syntactic patterns, but only the ‘weak’ verbs can partake in all three of them. Each of the three verbs also enters other constructions, with different meanings.
Published online: 28 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.15.04wil
References (45)
References
Aijmer, K. (1997). I think – an English modal particle. In T. Swan, & O.J. Westwik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1–47). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H.L. (1997). Propositions parenthétiques et subordination en français parlé. (Ph.D. Thesis). University of Copenhague.Google Scholar
Apothéloz, D. (2003). La rection dite faible: Grammaticalisation ou différentiel de grammaticité? Verbum, XXV(3), 241–262.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966/1958). De la subjectivité dans la langue. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., & Willems, D. (2007). Un nouveau regard sur les verbes faibles. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris,CII, 217–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1968). Postposed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 14, 3–30.Google Scholar
Borillo, A. (1978). Structure et valeur énonciative de l’interrogation indirecte en français. (Thèse d’état). Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P. (2007). Complement taking predicates. Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31(3), 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, C. (1999). On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 881–909. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). La mitigazione. Studi di pragmatica linguistica. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2005). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel H. (2005). Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 43(3), 449–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English. A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 97–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1975). Je trouve que. Semantikos, 1(1), 63–88.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1973). Parenthetical clauses. In C. Corum, S. Cedric, & A. Weiser (Eds.), You take the high node and I’ll take the low node (pp. 333–347). Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gachet, F. (2010). Entre rection et incidence: Un statut syntaxique atypique?Paper presented at the workshop Entre rection et incidence: des constructions verbales atypiques , Paris, Nanterre, March 26, 2010.
Gisborne, N. (2008). Dependencies are constructions: A case study in predicative complementation. In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 219–256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Glikman, J. (2009). Parataxe et subordination en ancien français. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation). Universities of Paris Ouest Nanterre and Potsdam.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultatives as a family of constructions. Language, 80, 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and other languages. Selected writings of Otto Jespersen (pp. 3–151). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (2010). What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson’s analysis of object complements. In K. Boye, & E. Engberg-­Pedersen (Eds.), Usage and structure. A festschrift for Peter Harder (pp. 3–43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ross, J.R. (1973). Slifting. In M. Gross, M. Halle, & M. Schützenberger (Eds.), The formal analysis of natural language (pp. 133–169). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2001). Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English Conversation. In J.L. Bybee, & P.J. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 61–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. (2002). ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26, 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S., & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In H. Heine, & E. Traugott (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 2, pp. 313–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein, & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 37–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Urmson, J. (1952). Parenthetical verbs. Mind, 61, 480–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, J. (2009). The grammar of complement-taking mental predicate constructions in present-day spoken British English. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Ghent University.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2006a). On subjectivity and ‘long distance wh-movement’. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp. 323–346). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2006b). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willems, D. (1981). Syntaxe, lexique et sémantique des constructions verbales. Gent: Faculteit van de Letteren en wijsbegeerte.Google Scholar
Willems, D, D. (2007). Typologie des procès et régularités polysémiques. In D. Bouchard, I. Evrard, & E. Vocaj (Eds.), Représentation du sens linguistique: Actes du colloque international de Montréal; [… regroupe une partie des communications présentés au deuxième Colloque “Représentations du Sens Linguistique” qui s’est tenu à l’Université du Quebec à Montréal en mai 2003] (pp. 162–177). Brussels: De Boeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
Willems, D. (2011). Les degrés d’intégration syntaxique de la modalité épistémique. Le cas de sembler et paraître . In M.J. Béguelin, & G. Corminboeuf (Eds.), Du système linguistique aux actions langagières (pp. 61–72). Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck-Duculot, Série Champs linguistiques.Google Scholar
Willems, D., & Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2008). Verbes ‘faibles’ et verbes à valeur épistémique en français parlé: il me semble, il paraît, j’ai l’impression, on dirait, je dirais . In M. Iliescu, H.M. Siller-Runggaldier, & P. Danler (Eds.), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Innsbruck, 3–8 September 2007 (Vol. 1, pp. 565–579). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Willems, D., & Meulleman, M. (2010). Il y a des gens ils viennent acheter des aspirines pour faire de l’eau gazeuse. Sur les raisons d’être des structures parataxiques en il y a . In M.J. Béguelin, M. Avanzi, & G. Corminboeuf (Eds.), La parataxe (pp. 167–185). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Martínez Vázquez, Montserrat
2023. Chapter 10. A constructional analysis of digo yo in peninsular Spanish. In Constructions in Spanish [Constructional Approaches to Language, 34], ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Belligh, Thomas & Claudia Crocco
2022. Theticity and sentence-focus in Italian: grammatically encoded categories or categories of language use?. Linguistics 60:4 ► pp. 1241 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.