How sentence type influences the interpretation of Spanish future constructions
It is well known that Spanish futurizing morphology is frequently used not to express futurity, but instead to formulate a hypothesis, i.e. express epistemic modality. Although this is possible with both synthetic or periphrastic future marking, the synthetic future tense is more likely to express an epistemic reading than the periphrastic future. This paper explores the relationship between futurizing morphology and sentence type on the basis of a quantitative analysis of about n = 2,700 tokens of synthetic and periphrastic ‘future’ constructions in spoken conversations from Madrid, Buenos Aires and Santiago de Chile. On the basis of a bottom-up classification of these tokens regarding their potential to express modal meanings, we demonstrate that polar and partial futurizing interrogatives are more likely to display modal meanings and associated rhetorical effects than futurizing declaratives. This effect is even stronger for synthetic future constructions, due to a conventionalization of specific form-function pairings. Finally, we also document substantial dialectal variation in the use of futurizing morphology.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Futurity and evidentiality in the Spanish future tense
- 3.Data
- 4.Evidential readings in future-inflected interrogatives
- 5.Quantitative analysis
- 5.1Analytical approach
- 5.2Results
- 5.3Discussion
- 6.Summary and outlook
- Notes
-
References
References (37)
References
Aaron, Jessica. 2006. Variation and change in Spanish future temporal expression. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico PhD thesis.
Agresti, Alan. 2010. Analysis of ordinal categorical data, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Wiley. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blas Arroyo, José L. 2011.
Deber (de) + infinitivo: ¿un caso de variación libre en español? Factores determinantes en un fenómeno de alternancia sintáctica. Revista de Filología Española 91(1). 9–42. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butt, John & Carmen Benjamin. 2011. A new reference grammar of modern Spanish, 5th edn. Arnold: London.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Christensen, Rune H. B. 2019. Ordinal – regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2019. 12–10. [URL]. Last accessed 23 June 2020.
Company Company, Concepción & Javier Cuétara Priede. 2014. Manual de gramática histórica. México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ehmer, Oliver & Malte Rosemeyer. 2018. When “questions” are not questions: Inferences and conventionalization in Spanish but-prefaced partial interrogatives. Open Linguistics 41. 70–100. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Enfield, Nick J., Penelope Brown & Jan P. de Ruiter. 2012. Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sentence- final particles in comparative perspective. In Jan P. de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional, and interactional perspectives, 193–221. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, María V. 2010. Futuro y evidencialidad. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 261. 9–34.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, María V. 2014. Evidential futures: The case of Spanish. In Philippe de Brabanter, Mikhail Kissine & Saghie Sharifzadeh (eds.), Future tense vs.future time: An introduction, 219–246. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, María V. 2018. Evidential commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 1281. 102–115. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fiengo, Robert. 2007. Asking questions: Using meaningful structures to imply ignorance. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Garachana, Mar. 2019. De cuando ir a + infinitivo no se dirige al futuro: Construcciones gramaticales de pasado, sentido completivo y focalizador. Una aproximación desde la Gramática de Construcciones. Revista Española de Lingüística 49(1). 119–146. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gennari, Silvia. 2000. Semantics and pragmatics of future tenses in Spanish. In Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger, Alfonso Morales-Front & Thomas J. Walsh (eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millennium, 264–281. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gómez Manzano, Pilar. 1992. Perífrasis verbales con infinitivo (valores y usos en la lengua hablada). Madrid: UNED.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–125. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 395–414. Malden: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, Valen E. & James H. Albert. 2004. Ordinal regression models. In David Kaplan (ed.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences, 151–174. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jørgensen, Annette Myre & Esperanza Eguía Padilla. 2017. Proyecto COLA. Corpus oral de languaje adolescente. [URL]. Last accessed 21 December 2017.
Koshik, Irene. 2003.
Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies 51. 51–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ledgeway, Adam & Martin Maiden. 2016. The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matte Bon, Francisco. 2006. Maneras de hablar del futuro en español entre gramática y pragmática. Futuro, ir a + infinitivo y presente de indicativo: análisis, usos y valor profundo. RedELE 6. [URL]. Last accessed 25 March 2011.
Moreno de Alba, José G. 1993. El español en América. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
R Core Development Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.4.2 (Kite-Eating Tree). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]. Last accessed 1 July 2019.
Rivero, María Luisa. 2014. Spanish inferential and mirative futures and conditionals: An evidential gradable modal proposal. Lingua 151(B). 197–215. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rodríguez Rosique, Susana. 2019. El futuro en español: Tiempo, conocimiento, interacción. Berlin: Peter Lang. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosemeyer, Malte. 2017. La historia de las perífrasis deber / deber de + INF: Variación, norma y géneros textuales. In Mar Garachana (ed.), La gramática en la diacronía: La evolución de las perífrasis verbales modales en español, 147–195. Madrid: Iberoamericana. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosemeyer, Malte. 2019. Brazilian Portuguese in-situ wh-interrogatives between rhetoric and change. Glossa 4(1). 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sedano, Mercedes. 2006. Importancia de los datos cuantitativos en el estudio de las expresiones de futuro. Revista Signos 391. 283–296. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwenter, Scott A. 1999. Evidentiality in Spanish morphosyntax: A reanalysis of dequeísmo. In María J. Serrano (ed.), Estudios de variación sintáctica, 65–87. Madrid: Iberoamericana.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Enrique-Arias, Andrés & Marina Gomila Albal
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.