Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Evidentiality in Spanish: Explorations across genres
Edited by Carolina Figueras Bates and Adrián Cabedo
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 290] 2018
► pp. 223–250

Chapter 10
Tenses in interaction

Beyond evidentiality

| University of Alicante

This chapter analyzes the discursive functions performed by the future in Spanish. In order to do so, it departs from a definition of the future based on the deictic ‘distance forward’ instruction, which may be projected along a subjectivity axle and cross different levels of meaning. When distance is projected upon the utterance, the future plays several discursive roles and traverses a variety of categories that go beyond evidentiality. More specifically, the future in Spanish can be a powerful tool to persuade and convince (persuasive future); it can also help control disagreement as part of a counter-argumentation strategy (concessive future); or it can participate in an assessment process (mirative future). Information occurring in the future must have been previously activated for these values to arise, which naturally happens in the context of interaction.

Keywords: future, (inter)subjectivity, (counter)argumentation, mirativity
Article outline
  • 1.Time, tense, tenses, and the puzzle of the future
    • 1.1 Future, discourse, and evidentiality
  • 2.A deictic definition for the future
  • 3. Interaction as a joint activity
  • 4.Discursive functions of the future
    • 4.1 Persuasive future
    • 4.2Concessive future
    • 4.3Mirative future
  • 5. Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.290.10rod
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012 “The essence of mirativity.” Linguistic Typology 16: 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akatsuka, Noriko
1985 “Conditionals and the Epistemic Scale.” Language 61 (3): 625–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A., and Dan I. Slobin
1986 “A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish.” In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe, and Johanna Nichols, 159–167. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Albelda, Marta
2007 La intensificación como categoría pragmática. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Alonso Cortés, Ángel
1999 “Las construcciones exclamativas. La interjección y las expresiones vocativas.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 3993–4050. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
[1983] 1994 La argumentación en la lengua. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Azorín, Dolores
2002 (coord.): ALCORE. Alicante Corpus del Español. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Bello, Andrés
[1847] 1970 Gramática de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos. Buenos Aires: Sopena.Google Scholar
Bermúdez, Fernando W.
2004 La evidencialidad. La codificación pragmática del punto de vista. Doctoral Dissertation. Stockholms Universitet.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
2001 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolón Pedretti, Alma
1999 “Pasivos serán los de antes: apuntes discursivo-enunciativos sobre un valor de futuro.” Hispania 82: 830–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisard, Frank
2010 “Aspects of Virtuality in the Meaning of the French Imparfait.” Linguistics 48 (2): 487–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisard, Frank, and Adeline Patard
2011 “Introduction: Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Epistemic Modality.” In Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Epistemic Modality, ed. by Adeline Patard, and Frank Brisard, 1–20. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briz, Antonio
2003 “Las unidades de la conversación: el acto.” In Estudios ofrecidos al profesor José Jesús de Bustos Tovar, ed. by José Luis Girón Alconchel, Silvia Iglesias, Francisco Javier Herrero, and Antonio Narbona, 953–968. Madrid: Ed. Complutense.Google Scholar
, and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2000 Cómo se comenta un texto coloquial. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
[1934] 1967 Teoría del lenguaje. Madrid: Revista de Occidente.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago / London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Castroviejo, Elena
2008 “Deconstructing Exclamations.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7: 41–90.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “An Expressive Answer. Some Considerations on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Wh-Exclamatives.” Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [URL].
Chafe, Wallace
1976 “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by C. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1977 “Bridging.” In Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, ed. by Peter C. Johnson-Laird, and Philip N. Wason, 411–420. London / New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company, Concepción
2006 “Tiempos de formación romance II. Los futuros y condicionales.” In Sintaxis Histórica de la Lengua EspañolaI, ed. by Concepción Company, 349–418. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1985 Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert
2009 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality. On the Close Relationship between Two Different Categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 44–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1976 El sistema verbal románico. México: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra Thompson
2000 “Concessive patterns in conversation.” In Cause, condition, concession, constrast, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 381-410. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1985 Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand
2005 “Encoding Speaker Perspective: Evidentials”. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories, ed. by Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges, and David S. Rood, 379–397. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Saussure, Louis
2013 “Perspectival Interpretations of Tenses.” In Time. Language, Cognition and Reality, ed. by Kasia M. Jaszczolt, and Louis De Saussure, 46–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1997 “Mirativity: the Grammatical Marking of Unexpected Information.” Linguistic Typology 1 (1): 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2001 “The Mirative and Evidentiality.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, Patrick, and Liliane Tasmowski
2001 “Introduction: Evidentiality and Related Notions.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C.
1997 The Theory of Functional Grammar. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew
1996 “Forms, Pragmatic Presupposition, and Activated Propositions.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 475–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1995 “Les modificateurs déréalisants.” Journal of Pragmatics 24: 145–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duque, Eladio
2016 Las relaciones de discurso. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Escandell, M. Victoria
2010 “Futuro y evidencialidad.” Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 26: 9–34.Google Scholar
2014 “Evidential Futures: The Case of Spanish.” In Future Tense vs. Future Time: An Introduction, ed. by Philippe De Brabanter, Mikhail Kissine, and Saghia Sharifzadeh, 219–246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Español Giralt, M. Teresa
2011 “Valor concesivo versus adversativo en algunas estructuras propias de la lengua conversacional. Su relación con la modalidad alética o de posibilidad.” In Sintaxis y análisis del discurso hablado en español. Homenaje a Antonio Narbona. Vol. 1, ed. by José Jesús Bustos Tovar, Rafael Cano, Elena Mández, and Araceli López, 209–218. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, 209–218.Google Scholar
Fernández Leborans, María Jesús
1999 “La predicación. Las oraciones copulativas.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 2357–2461. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Fernández Ramírez, Salvador
1986 Gramática española. 4. El verbo y la oración. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1981 “Pragmatics and the description of discourse.” In Radical pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 143–166. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne
1982 The Future in Thought and Language. Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1989 “Temporal Distance: A Basic Linguistic Metaphor.” Studies in Language 13 (1): 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Negroni, Marta
2016 “Polifonía, evidencialidad citativa y tiempos verbales. Acerca de los usos citativos del futuro morfológico y del futuro perifrástico.” In La evidencialidad en español. Teoría y descripción, ed. by Ramón González, Dámaso Izquierdo, and Óscar Loureda, 279–301. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert.Google Scholar
Garrido, Joaquín
2007 “Relaciones de discurso.” Pandora: Revue d’Études Hispaniques 7: 305–332.Google Scholar
Garrido Rodríguez, M. Camino
2004 Conectores contraargumentativos en la conversación coloquial. León: Universidad de LeónGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Alda Mari
2012 “The Future of Greek and Italian: An Epistemic Analysis.” Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17: 255–270. [URL]
Gili Gaya, Samuel
[1951] 1993 Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Indugraf.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan
[2012] 2015 The Interactive Stance. Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, Ramón, Dámaso Izquierdo, and Óscar Loureda
2016 “Un acercamiento a los fundamentos de la evidencialidad y a su recepción y tratamiento en la lingüística hispánica.” In La evidencialidad en español. Teoría y descripción, ed. by Ramón González, Dámaso Izquierdo, and Óscar Loureda, 9–45. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert.Google Scholar
Gras, Pedro
2011 Gramática de construcciones en interacción. Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Ordóñez, Salvador
1997 Temas, remas, focos, tópicos y comentarios. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel
2013 “Expressives and Beyond. An Introduction to Varieties of Use-Conditional Meaning.” In Beyond expressives. Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, ed. by Daniel Gutzmann and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1–58. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haβler, Gerda
2010 “Epistemic Modalityand Evidentiality and their Definition on a Deictic Basis.” In Modality and Mood in Romance: Modal Interpretation, Mood Selection, and Mood Alternation, ed. by Martin G. Becker and Eva-Maria Remberger, 95–108. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
1983 “On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions.” WCCFL 2: 114–125.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and Hella Olbertz
2012 “Didn’t you Know? Mirativity does Exist!” Linguistic Typology 16 (3): 487–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, M. Lluisa
2012 “Sobre la periferia izquierda y el movimiento: El complementante si en español.” In El movimiento de constituyentes, ed. by Josep Maria Brucart, and Ángel J. Gallego, 151–171. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan
2012 “Mirativity does not Exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and Other Suspects.” Linguistic Typology 16 (13): 389–434.Google Scholar
Iglesias, Silvia
2000 “Propiedades interpretativas y discursivas de la estructura ¡(Si) será bobo!” In Cien años de investigación semántica: de Michel Bréal a la actualidad, ed. by José Manuel Oliver Frade et al., 529-542. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M.
2009 Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1999 “Virtual reality.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29 (2): 77-103.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2011 “The English Present: Temporal Coincidence vs. Epistemic Immediacy.” In Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Epistemic Modality, ed. by Adeline Patard, and Frank Brisard, 45–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1999 “Mirativity, Evidentiality, Mediativity, or Other.” Linguistic Typology 3: 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1979 “Activity Types and Language.” Linguistics 17. 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Presumptive meaning. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge / London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David
1979 “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2004 “Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative and Contrastive Marking.” Journal of Semantics 21 (2): 177–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martines, Josep
2017 “L’émergence des futurs épistémiques romans. L’exemple du catalan médiéval du XIIIème siècle.” In Le futur dans les langues romanes, ed. by Laura Baranzini. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mozerski, Joshua M.
2015 Time, language, and ontology. The world from the B-Theoretic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John
1997 “Should and ought: The rise of individually oriented modality in American English.” Journal of English Linguistics 1: 3-23.Google Scholar
Montolío, Estrella
1999 “Las construcciones condicionales.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 3643–3737. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Myhill, John, and Laura A. Smith
1995 “The Discourse and Interactive Functions of Obligation Expressions.” In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by Joan L. Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 239–292. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2001a Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001b “Subjectivity as an Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Qualificational Meanings, Illocutionary Signals, and the Cognitive Planning of Language Use.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Notions of (Inter)subjectivity.” English Text Construction 5 (1): 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavón, M. Victoria
1999 “Clases de partículas: Preposición, conjunción y adverbio.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 565–655. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Pérez Saldanya, Manuel
2002 “Les relacions temporals i aspectuals.” In Gramàtica del català contemporani, ed. by Joan Solà, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró, and Manuel Pérez Saldanya, 2567–2662. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyle
2013 “Rethinking Mirativity: The Expression and Implication of Surprise.” Ms., University of Toronto [available at: [URL]] 2013.
Portolés, José.
1993 “Atributos con un enfático.” Revue Romane 28 (2): 218–236.Google Scholar
1998 “El concepto de suficiencia argumentativa.” Signo y Seña 9: 201–224.Google Scholar
Portolés, José
2004 Pragmática para hispanistas. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Porroche, Margarita
1998 “Sobre algunos usos de que, si y es que como marcadores discursivos.” In Marcadores del discurso, ed. by María Antonia Martín Zorraquino, and Estrella Montolío, 229–242. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2005 The logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007 “Into the Conventional-Implicature Dimension.” Philosophy Compass 4(2): 665–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1992 “The ZPG letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information Status.” In Discourse Description: Discourse Analyses of a Fundraising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 295–325. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española [RAE]
2009 Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Morfología. Sintaxis, I. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
2014 Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Barcelona: Espasa Libros.Google Scholar
Banco de datos (CREA). Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. [URL]
Banco de datos (CORPES XXI). Corpus del Español del Siglo XXI. [URL]
Reig Alamillo, Assela
2011 “The Pragmatic Meaning of the Spanish Construction lo que pasa es que .” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1435–1450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica
2012 “Expressing Exceeded Expectations in Exclamatives and Other Constructions.” Second Cornell workshop in Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Reyes, Graciela
1990 “Tiempo, modo, aspecto e intertextualidad.” Revista Española de Lingüística 20: 17–53.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa
2014 “Spanish Inferential and Mirative Futures and Conditionals: An Evidential Gradable Modal Proposal.” Lingua 151: 197–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
1996 “Information Structure: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics.” OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 91–136.Google Scholar
Rocci, Andrea
2012 “Modality and argumentative discourse relations: A study of the Italian necessity modal dovere.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2129-2149.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, Teresa M.
2016 “Partículas evidenciales en el desarrollo del discurso reformulativo.” In La evidencialidad en español. Teoría y descripción, ed. by Ramón González, Dámaso Izquierdo, and Óscar Loureda, 179–200. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Rosique, Susana
2008 Pragmática y gramática. Condicionales concesivas en español. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2011 “Valores epistémicos de las categorías verbales. Cuando la pragmática se integra en la gramática.” Verba. Anuario Galego de Filoloxia 38: 243–269.Google Scholar
2015a “Distance, Evidentiality and Counter-Argumentation: Concessive Future in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 85: 181–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015b “Spanish Future in Evaluative Contexts: A Case of Mirativity?” e-Humanista / IVITRA 8: 500–516.Google Scholar
2017 “The Future of Necessity in Spanish: Modality, Evidentiality and Deictic Projection at the Crossroads”. In Evidentiality and modality in European languages: Discourse-pragmatic, ed. by Juana Marín-Arrese, Julia Lavid-López, Marta Carretero, Elena Domínguez, María Victoria Martín, and María Pérez, 57-85. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rojo, Guillermo, and Alexandre Veiga
1999 “El tiempo verbal. Los tiempos simples.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 1867–2934. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott
1999 Pragmatics of Conditional Marking. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
2000 “Viewpoints and Polisemy: Linking Adversative and Causal Meanings of Discourse Markers.” In Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast, ed. by Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 257–281. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Independent Si-Clauses in Spanish.” In Insubordination, ed. by Nicholas Evans, and Honoré Watanabe, 89–112. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario
2001 “The Internal Structure of Evidentiality in Romance.” Studies in Language 25 (2): 297–334 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Lexical vs. Grammatical Evidentiality in French and Italian.” Linguistics 46 (5): 917–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Evidentiality in Interaction: The Concessive Use of the Italian Future between Grammar and Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2116–2128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C.
1978 “Assertion.” In Syntax and semantics 9. Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suñer, Avel.lina
1999 “La aposición y otras relaciones de predicación en el sintagma nominal.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 523–364. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth C.
1989 “Subjectification in Grammaticalisation.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “(Inter) subjectivity and (Inter) subjectification: A Reassessment.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir A. Plungian
1998 “Modality’s Semantic Map.” Linguistic Typology 2: 7–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willet, Thomas
1988 “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12: 51-97.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Cabedo Nebot, Adrián & Carolina Figueras Bates
2018. Chapter 1. Evidentiality in discourse. In Perspectives on Evidentiality in Spanish [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 290], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2023. 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.