Cover not available
Part of
Cross-linguistic Correspondences: From lexis to genre
Edited by Thomas Egan and Hildegunn Dirdal
[Studies in Language Companion Series 191] 2017
► pp. 177–198

Chapter 7
Reportive evidentials in English and Lithuanian

What kind of correspondence?

| Vilnius University
| Vilnius University
The paper is concerned with lexical realizations of reportive evidentiality (Boye and Harder 2009; Celle 2009; Wiemer 2007; Aikhenvald 2008; Wiemer 2010b; Boye 2012) across different discourse types and languages. Our aim is to see how language specific the realizations and conceptualization of indirect reportive evidentiality are by contrasting the findings of the analysis of the data collected from various monolingual and parallel corpora. One of the purposes of this contrastive analysis is to find out what kind of correspondence one can expect when dealing with the reportive sub-domain of the linguistic category of evidentiality. The analysis is focused on the hearsay adverbs in English (reportedly, allegedly, supposedly) and Lithuanian adverbials neva ‘allegedly’, tariamai ‘supposedly’, esą ‘allegedly’ as well as their bi-directionally established translation correspondences (comment clauses, complement-taking predicates, as-parentheticals, etc.). The present study is corpus-based and makes use of quantitative and qualitative methods of research. The Lithuanian data have been drawn from the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian (CorALit) and from the spoken, news and fiction sub-corpora of the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (CCLL). The English data have been extracted from the British National Corpus (BYU-BNC). To establish translation correspondences between the items under study, a parallel bidirectional fiction corpus ParaCorpEN-LT-EN, and a collection of translations from English into Lithuanian of EU documents (Glosbe) have been used. Our findings indicate that both sets of adverbials are mainly used in written language (news and academic discourse in English and news discourse and fiction in Lithuanian); however, there is very weak equivalence in their translation correspondences. The question is raised whether the Lithuanian adverbials can be regarded as reportive evidentials.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and method
    • 2.1The corpora
    • 2.2Data selection criteria
  • 3.Findings
    • 3.1Quantitative findings
    • 3.2The analysis of translation correspondences in Glosbe
    • 3.3The analysis of TCs in ParaCorpEN-LT-EN : Mutual correspondence
  • 4.Concluding observations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • Data sources
  • References
  • References
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.191.07uso
References (39)
Data sources
BNC: Davies, Mark. 2004-. BYUBNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). <[URL]>
CCLL: Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language <[URL]>
CorALit: Corpus of Academic Lithuanian <[URL]>
Glosbe: Multilingual Online Dictionary <[URL]>
EU Parliamentary proceedings ( Europarl8 – A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation, Philipp Koehn, MT Summit 2005)
European Community legislation texts ( EUR-Lex; The Official Journal of the European Union)
ParaCorp en-lt-en Parallel: Bidirectional English-Lithuanian Fiction Corpus (Usonienė & Šolienė 2010)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. Modal adverbs of certainty and uncertainty in an English–Swedish perspective. In Information Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 97–112. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2007. The meaning and functions of the Swedish discourse marker alltså – evidence from translation corpora. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 31–59.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt. 2002. Zero translations and cross-linguistic equivalence: Evidence from the English–Swedish parallel corpus. In From the COLT’s Mouth … and Others’: Language Corpora Studies in Honour of Anna-Brita Stenström, Leiv Egil Breivik & Angela Hasselgren (eds), 19–41. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. Information source and evidentiality: What can we conclude? Rivista di Linguistica 19(1): 207–227.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1999. Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalisation. Functions of Language 16(1): 9–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Celle, Agnès. 2009. Hearsay adverbs and modality. In Modality in English: Theory and Description, Raphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 269–394. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2004. “Not now” – on non-correspondence between the cognate adverbs now and nå . SPRIKreports no. 20. <[URL]>
. 2007. Using the ENPC and the ESPC as a parallel translation corpus: Adverbs of frequency and usuality. Nordic Journal of English Studies 6(1). <[URL]>
Holvoet, Axel. 2007. Mood and Modality in Baltic. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig. 2001. The English verb seem and its correspondences in Norwegian: What seems to be the problem? In A Wealth of English: Studies in Honour of Goran Kjellmer, Karin Aijmer (ed.), 221–245. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
. 2007. Seeing through multilingual corpora. In Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on, Roberta Facchinetti (ed.), 51–72. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalėdaitė, Violeta. 2002. Existential Sentences in English and Lithuanian: A Contrastive Study. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really . In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds), 191–217. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petit, Daniel. 2009. Zum Ausdruck der Evidentialität im Baltischen: Die litauische Partikel neva . Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 59: 57–80.Google Scholar
Sinkevičienė, Jurgita. 2013. Lietuvių neva – daugiafunkcinis diskurso markeris [Lithuanian neva – a multifunctional discourse marker]. Prace Baltystyczne 5: 83–100.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Šolienė, Audronė. 2012. Epistemic necessity in a parallel corpus: Lithuanian vs. English. In Multiple Perspectives in Linguistic Research on Baltic Languages, Aurelija Usonienė, Nicole Nau & Ineta Dabašinskienė (eds), 10–42. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2015. Multifunctionality of modal markers: Lithuanian epistemic adverbials GAL and GALBŪT ‘perhaps/maybe’ vs. their translational correspondences. Kalbotyra 67: 155–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usonienė, Aurelija. 2015. Non-morphological realizations of evidentiality: The case of parenthetical elements in Lithuanian. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds), 437–464. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Reikšmės pasaulis: Tekstynais paremti semantiniai kalbų tyrimai. (The World of Meaning: Corpus-based Semantic Studies of Language). Vilnius: Akademinė leidyba.Google Scholar
Usonienė, Aurelija & Šolienė, Audronė. 2010. Choice of strategies in realizations of epistemic possibility in English and Lithuanian. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(2): 291–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usonienė, Aurelija & Šinkūnienė, Jolanta. 2017. Potential vs use: Revisiting an evidential participial construction in Lithuanian. In Evidentiality Revidited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-pragmatic Perspectives, Juana I. Marín Arrese, Gerda Hassler & Marta Carretero (eds), 297–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, Schalley, Ewa & Nuyts, Jan. 2005. Epistemic possibility in a Slavonic parallel corpus: A pilot study. In Modality in Slavonic Languages: New Perspectives, Björn Hansen & Petr Karlik (eds), 201–217. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2007. Lexical markers of evidentiality in Lithuanian. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1): 173–208.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Lithuanian esą: A heterosemic reportive marker in its contemporary stage. Baltic Linguistics 1: 245–308.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Hearsay in European languages: Toward an integrative account of grammatical and lexical marking. In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds), 59–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas L. 1988. A Cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar