Cover not available
Article published In:
The Linguistic Expression of Mirativity
Edited by Agnès Celle and Anastasios Tsangalidis
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:2] 2017
► pp. 438–459

From mirativity to argumentation

A case of discursive mirativity

| Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité

This study is an analysis of the relation between emotion and cognition exhibited by the various uses of meditative-polemic should in English. In its primary uses linked to the expression of emotions, the syntactic construction exhibits a negative evaluative meaning in the superordinate clause, which posits the propositional content of the subordinate clause as counter-expected and therefore endowed with a mirative value. In more intellectual uses in which the superordinate clause does not explicitly express negative meanings, the semantic mirative meaning is preserved, illustrating a case of multistratal modality. In these cases, the initial mirative value is exploited in argumentation as discursive mirativity, counter-expectancy being used as a built-in foundation for more elaborate meanings, allowing a subject to express a particular value while anticipating contradiction on the part of another subject.

Keywords: counter-expectancy, mirativity, meditative-polemic should , evaluative modality, negative meanings, multistratal modality, discursive mirativity, emotions, cognition, argumentation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Mirativity and emotions: A basic level of cognition
    • 2.1Mirativity and negative emotions
    • 2.2Mirativity and positive emotions
  • 3.Mirativity and “intellectual” uses: a more elaborate mode of cognition
    • 3.1Relating P to Q: Q is mentioned
    • 3.2Relating P to Q: Q is understood, but not mentioned
  • 4.Argumentative discourse: How mirative is MedPol should ?
    • 4.1 MedPol should: The “polemic” and “meditative” elements
    • 4.2Is MedPol should always polemic?
  • 5.Discursive mirativity
    • 5.1Syntactic context and adverbs like quite and only
    • 5.2Connectors: after all and other more ordinary discursive connectors
  • 6.The absence of an explanatory term
    • 6.1Second-degree mirativity: irrelevant, insignificant
    • 6.2The explanatory term is questioned
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.06ari
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2012) The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arigne, V.
(1984) Shall-should: Contribution à l’étude des modalités en anglais contemporain, Thèse de 3e cycle, Paris, Université de Paris 7 (ms.)Google Scholar
(1989)  Shall et should, étude de modalités. In A. Gauthier (Dir.), Explorations en linguistique anglaise (pp. 153–228). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2007) Grammaticalization, polysemy and iterated modality: The case of should . Corela, 5(1). [URL]. DOI logo
(2010) Subjectivité et référence : Questions de sémantique. Dossier soumis pour l’Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris 4), vol. 11 : Synthèse de l’activité scientifique. [URL]
(2014) L’affect et les émotions dans la construction du discours argumenté. In P. Blumenthal, I. Novakova, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Les émotions dans le discours/Emotions in discourse (pp. 255–266). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2015) La modalité appréciative: vers une sémantique de good . Anglophonia, 191. [URL]. DOI logo
Behre, F.
(1950) The origin and early history of meditative-polemic should in that clauses. Göteborgs Högsolas Arsskrift, 56(3), 275–309.Google Scholar
(1955)  Meditative-polemic should in Modern English that-clauses . Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bourdier, V.
(2015)  Should après un adjectif de valuation : Un marqueur inattendu? Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 60(2), 187–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culioli, A.
(1968) La formalisation en linguistique. Les Cahiers pour l’Analyse, 91, 106–117Google Scholar
(1974) A propos des énoncés exclamatifs. Langue française, 221, 6–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S.
(1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 11, 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desurmont, C.
(2016) L’adjectif appréciatif nice : observations sur la nature variable de la prédication. Corela, 14(1). [URL]. DOI logo
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, B.
(1988)  Should and would in factual that-clauses. English Studies, 69(1), 72–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onions, C. T.
(1966) The Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pennec, B.
(2011)  After all: l’introducteur d’une résurgence. Cercles, 201, 154–169.Google Scholar
Peterson, T.
(2013) Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. Manuscript. University of Toronto. [URL]
Piéraut-Le-Bonniec, G.
(1974) Le raisonnement modal: étude génétique. Paris: École des Hautes Études/Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rett, J.
(2011) Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(5), 411–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salkie, R.
(2009) Degrees of modality. In R. Salkie, P. Busuttil, & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English: Theory and description (pp. 79–103). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuels, M. L.
(1957) Review of Behre 1955. The Review of English Studies, 81, 343–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skorin-Kapov, J.
(2015) The aesthetics of desire and surprise. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.
(2004) Le rôle de l’évolution des Marqueurs Discursifs dans une théorie de la grammaticalisation. In M. M. J. Fernandez-Vest & S. Carter-Thomas (Eds.), Structure informationnelle et particules énonciatives (pp. 295–333). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Zeevat, H.
(2009) “Only” as a mirative particle. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 33(1–2), 179–196.Google Scholar