The evidential meaning of modal parentheticals

(1)

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or

licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the

article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or

institutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are

encouraged to visit:

(2)

The

evidential

meaning

of

modal

parentheticals

Corinne

Rossari

*

UniversityofFribourg,DomaineFrançais,13av.Beauregard,CH-1700Fribourg,Switzerland Received26September2011;receivedinrevisedform5July2012;accepted17September2012

Abstract

Thearticleexploreshowtheevidentialmeaningof‘inference’,‘perception’and‘hearsay’transmittedresp.bythefollowingFrench markers:fautcroire[oneshouldbelieve],ondirait[oneshouldsay]andparaît[itseems]isrelatedtotheirparentheticaluse.Toaddress this question,wefirstanalyzethesyntacticandpragmaticfunctionofthesethree parentheticalconstituents,byshowingthattheir preferenceforthefinalpositionistobeputinrelationwithadialogicalvalue.Second,wewillseethattheirevidentialmeaningcanbe reconstructedstepbystepbytakingintoaccountsuchadialogicalvalueaswellasthelexicalmeaningoftheverbtheyarecompounded with.Moregenerally,ourstudywillshowthatanevidentialmeaningisnotagenuinevalue,butisobtainedbyapluralityoffactors.Among them,thepragmaticfunctionduetotheirparentheticaluseplaysasignificantrole.

Keywords: Pragmatics;Syntax;Parenthetical;Evidentiality;Lexicalization

1. Introduction1

Theobjectiveofthisarticleistohighlightacaseofevidential2meaningderivedfromtheparentheticaluseofmodal

verbs.Weessentiallyfocusourattentiononmarkersbuiltwithverbsconveyingverydifferentlexicalmeaning:fautcroire

[oneshouldbelieve]builtwithaverbexpressinganobligation‘faut’andaverbexpressinganepistemicstate‘croire’,on

dirait[onewouldsay]composedwithadicendiverbusedintheconditionalmoodandparaît[itseems]whichconsistsinan

impersonalperceptiveverbconjugatedattheindicativepresent.Theirparentheticaluseinfinalpositionobliteratesthese

different lexicalmeaningsand givesrisetoasimilarevidentialvalue,as illustratedinthefollowingexamples3:

(1) Àdiredumalainsi,médire,mépriser,menacer,çaleurfaisaitdubien,fautcroire.Tospeakilllikethat,todespise,

tothreaten,it madethemfeelgood, oneshouldbelieve4(Céline,1932)

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

JournalofPragmatics44(2012)2183--2193

* Tel.:+41263007800;fax:+41263009752. E-mailaddress:corinne.rossari@unifr.ch.

1_This_current_study_is_a_contribution_to_the_research_project_‘‘The_evidential_system_of_French_and_Italian_’’_funded_by_the_SNF_(Nos.

101512--117645).ItextendstheworkinitiatedinRossari(2012)forfautcroire,ondiraitandparaît.Thepresentanalysisreliesonthesyntacticand pragmaticfunctionofthesemarkers,whereasmyformerresearchwasfocusedontheinteractionbetweenmodalandevidentialmeaning.

2_The_notion_of_{‘‘evidential}_meaning_’’_is_used_in_reference_to_the_way_it_has_been_introduced_in_pragmatics_for_the_analysis_of_modal_markers_of

differentlanguages,asexposedintheseminalstudyofDendaleandTasmowski(2001).

3_Our_corpora_are_based_on_any_authentic_occurrence_regardless_of_diaphasic_variation._Therefore_we_take_into_account_databases,_as_Frantext

(fortheauthor'sexamples)orInternet(forthespontaneouswrittenoccurrences).Astudyfocusedonwherethesewaysofsayingcomefromisto bedone.Howeverwehypothesizethattheyoccurinwrittentextswiththepurposetoimitatethespontaneouslanguage.

4_The_French_discourses_and_expressions_are_always_translated_with_a_{word-for-word}_translation,_even_when_it_is_not_correct_in_English._In_the

caseofthemarkersanalyzedtheword-for-wordtranslationisquitefarfromthemeaninginFrench.

(3)

(2) Lesavionssontmaintenanttoutprès.Ilsfrôlentlesarbres,ondirait.Theplanesarenowveryclose.Theynearly

touchthetrees,onewould say(Cavanna,1979).

(3) Maintenant,jevaischezPascal.Etaprès,chezlapatronnequiveutmeparler,paraît.NowI’mgoingtoPascal.And

after,tothebosswhowantstotalkwithme,itseems.(Duhamel,1938).

Thethreemarkersindicatethatthespeakerhasonlyindirectevidenceforthestateofaffairs(SoA)expressedinthe

hostutterance.

Ouranalysiswillconcentrateontwoissues:ontheonehand,thesyntacticandpragmaticfunctionbetweenthemarker

andthehostclause;ontheotherhand,thesemanticsofeachmarker.Bothanalyseswillallowustoassesshowtheir

generalevidentialmeaning(indirectevidence)andtheirparticularone(‘inference’forfautcroire,‘vagueperception’foron

dirait and‘weakhearsay’forparaît)occurin thewaytheycontributetotheinterpretationofthehostutterance.

2. Thesyntacticandpragmaticfunctionbetweenthemarkerandthehostclause

2.1. Thesimilaritiesanddifferenceswiththereducedparentheticalclauses

Thethreeevidentialexpressionshavemanyfeaturesincommonwiththereducedparentheticalclauses(RPC)analyzed

inSchneider(2007).SomeoftheFrenchexpressionsincludedinSchneider'sRPClistareverysimilartotheitemsunder

consideration:‘‘jecrois,disons,ilfautdire,jedirais,paraît-il,mesemble-t-il’’(p.78).Accordingtothisauthor,theRPCare:

‘‘neitherthemainclausenorasubordinateclause,butareinsertedintooradjoinedtotheendofthesentenceinaway

similar with sentence adverbs.Their position isfree and there isno overt syntactic linkbetween them and the host

sentenceorpartsofit.Theyarerelatedtothehostonlybyadjacencyandbythefactthattheirmissingargumentcanbe

recoveredfromthehost.Asotherperipheralelements,theyareoptional,i.e.,theycanbeaddedaswellasdroppedfreely

without endangeringthegrammatical acceptability ofthehost.Nevertheless, theyarepragmaticallyconnected toit.’’

Schneider(2007:1).

Ourthreeexpressionsfitverycloselytothelatterdescription. However,theydifferontwoimportantpoints:

(i)Theyoccurinmostcasesinthefinalposition:

(4) Etc’estmêmepasbonàmanger;lerougedespoissonsrouges,c’estdupoison,paraît.Itisnotevengoodtoeat;

theredoftheredfishes,itispoison,itseems.(Fallet,1956)

(5) ??Etc’estmêmepasbonàmanger;lerougedespoissonsrouges,c’est,paraît,dupoison5Itisnotevengoodto

eat;theredofthe redfishes,it, itseems,ispoison.

Aparentheticalsuchas paraît-il[doesitseem]6canbeinsertedinanyposition:

(6) C’est,paraît-il, dupoisonItis,doesitseems,poison

(ii)Theydo nothaveamissingargument.They canbeusedasindependent utterances:

(7) Est-cequeçaleurfaisaitdubiendemédire,mépriser,menacer?Diditmakethemfeelgoodtospeakill,todespise,

tothreaten?

-Fautcroire/Ondirait /ParaîtOneshouldbelieve/Oneshouldsay/Itseems

Theforms withsubjectinversionare alsoRPCsaccordingto Schneider,but they cannot beusedas independent

utterances:

(8) Est-cequeçaleurfaisaitdubiendemédire,mépriser,menacer?Diditmakethemfeelgoodtospeakill,todespise,

tothreaten?

??[Faut-ilcroire/Dirait-on/Paraît-il/Mesemble-t-il]Shouldonebelieve/Shouldonesay/Doesitseem/Doesit

seemtome

5_{‘‘??’’}_indicates_that_there_is_no_attested_occurrence_of_the_form_and_that_the_sentence_sounds_odd.

6_English_makes_no_difference_between_the_form_with_subject_inversion₍_paraît-il)_and_the_regular_one_(il_paraît)._We_will_use_the_{interrogative}

(4)

Otherwise,mostofthecriterialistedbySchneiderarerelevantforourthreeexpressions.Thelackofovertlinkwiththe

hostclause,thesententialityandthepossiblelinkwithamainclause useddescriptivelyarepropertiessharedby our

markers.Theyarenotfull-fledgedclauses,i.e.theyaregrammaticallyandpragmaticallyreducedandexpressionswith

thesameverbscanbeusedasmainclauses:ilfautcroirequeP[oneshouldbelievethatP]orilfautlecroire[oneshould

believeit], ondiraitqueP[onewouldsaythatP]etilparaîtque P[itseemsthatP].

2.2. Thepossiblerelationshipswiththehostclause

TheauthorsquotedbySchneider(2007)putforwarddifferenthypothesestoexplainthesyntacticrelationshipandthe

pragmaticfunctionoftheseexpressions.Whileallofthemnotethelackofanovertlink,manyauthorstrytoestablisha

correspondencebetweentheRPC'sconstructionandthesameconstructionusedasamainclause.Thislinkisbasedon

theideathatthereissomesortofaderivationprocessbetweenthesubordinatestructure(VerbthatClause)andthe

parenthetical one (Clause, Verb). The notion of ‘‘recteur faible’’ (‘weak governing verbs’) introduced by

Blanche-Benveniste (1989) and reanalyzed in Blanche-Benvenisteand Willems (2007)and Willems and Blanche-Benveniste (2010)iscommonlyacknowledgedtocharacterizethisparticularrelationshipbetweenthetwostructures.Themainideais

that the subordinate clause in the (Verb that Clause) structurecanbe interpreted as the maincontent ofthe whole

structure,aspointedoutintheseminalworkofUrmson(1952).Suchaninterpretationisconsistentwiththelossofthe

subordination link, resulting in the parenthetical use of the verb. RPC is thus seen as maintaining ‘‘some kind of

relationshipwiththehostatahigherlevel’’Schneider(2007:29).Thedisagreementsregardthenatureoftherelationship.

Someauthorsconsider thatthereisanimplicit hypotacticrelationship betweentheparentheticalandthehost.For

instance, Damouretteet Pichon(1933)seethe‘‘incise’’assubordinateclauses:

‘‘Celui-là,ditLalieenmontrantBernard,n’estplusmonfrère.Thatoneoverthere,saysLalieindicatingBernard,isn’t

my brotheranymore

‘‘Celui-làn’estplusmonfrèrequeditLalieenmontrantBernard.Thatoneoverthereisn’tmybrotheranymore,that

saysLalieindicatingBernard’’ Schneider(2007:31)

Suchananalysisisnotrelevantforfautcroire asanevidentialmarker,butispossibleforparaîtandondirait:

(9) Cen’estplusmonfrère,fautcroire /ondirait/paraîtThatoneisn’tmy brotheranymore,one should

believe/one wouldsay/itseems

(10) #Cen’estplusmonfrèrequ’ilfautcroire7Thatoneisn’tmy brotheranymore,thatone shouldbelieve

(11) Pasde goguesici,qu’ilparaît.Norestroomshere,asitseems(Degaudenzi,1987)

(12) Lecœurvaluisauterqu’ondirait.Hisheartwillexplode,as onewouldsay(Lacretelle,deGuéritte,T.,Sarn

[trad.],1930).

Brinton(2007)sustains,likeDamouretteetPichon,thattheparentheticaluseofImeancouldcomefroman‘‘adverbial

finiteclause(e.g.,asyouknowinwhichashasarelativefunction,orasIseeitinwhichashasasubordinatorfunction)’’

Brinton(2007:54).However,suchananalysiscouldnotbeusedtocharacterizethelinkbetweenfautcroire,ondirait,

paraîtand thehostclause.Noitemcouldbeusedwithcomme:

(13) *Cen’estplusmonfrèrecommeilfautcroire/commeilparaît/commeondirait.8Thatoneisn’tmybrother

anymore,asone shouldbelieve /asonewouldsay/asit seems

Brintonfinallyselectsanother scenarioforexplainingtheemergenceofImean asapragmaticparenthetical:

‘‘InitiallyImeangovernsaphrasalelement{NP,VP,AP,PP,AdvP}andhasscopewithinthesentence.Thebonds

betweenImeanandthephrasalelementareweakenedorloosened,andImeancanbegintobepostposedtothephrasal

element. The phrasal element is then reanalysed as an independent element, and I mean as a syntactically free

parentheticalwithscopeoverthesentence.Atthispoint,Imeanisextendedtothecontextofclausesandcanbepre-or

postposed toclausalelementsas well,thusacquiringscopeoverdiscourse.’’Brinton(2007:58).

Suchanexplanationisalsoplausibleforfautcroire. Ithasthecapacitytogovernaphrasalelementwhichcanbe

expressedbyaclitic:ilfautlecroire.Butthepresenceofthecliticobjectisneverattestedwhenfautcroireisusedinthe

finalpositionandifever usedtheutterancesoundsodd:

7_{‘‘#’’}_indicates_that_the_sentence_is_grammatical,_but_has_another_{interpretation:}_ce_n_’est_pas_mon_frère_qu_’il_faut_croire_mais_mon_ami_[it_is_not_my

brotherthatweshouldbelieve,butmyfriend].

8_{‘‘*’’}_indicates_that_the_sentence_is_not_grammatical._Comme_on_dirait_is_possible,_but_it_means_‘‘it_is_a_way_of_saying_’’._It_has_no_evidential

(5)

(14) Rosaliereprit:Rosaliesaid:

-M.Paulviendradèsl’enterrementfini.Demainàlamêmeheure,fautcroire.Mr.Paulwillcomeassoonasthe

burialisover.Tomorrowatthesametime,oneshould believe.(Maupassant,1883).

(15) M.Paulviendradèsl’enterrementfini.Demainàlamêmeheure,??ilfautlecroireMr.Paulwillcomeassoonas

theburialisover.Tomorrowatthesametime,one shouldbelieveit.

Paraîtandondiraitcantheoreticallygovernaphrasalelement(ondiraitX/ilparaîtX)butinbothcasesthephrasal

elementiseither aclauseorareducedclause.

(16) Ilparaîtque Paulestvenu.ItseemsthatPaulcame

(17) On diraitPaul->Ondirait quec’estPaulOnewouldsayPaul->OnewouldsaythatitisPaul

ThereforetheanalysiscannotbetheoneassumedbyBrintonforImean.Forotherwise,itwouldimplythefollowing

scenario:

‘‘Ithinkthathewillwin>Ithinkhewillwin>Hewillwin,Ithink’’, Brinton(2007:53).

ThelatterisnotadoptedforexplainingtheemergenceofImeanasapragmaticparenthetical.Furthermore,thereisno

empiricalgroundtoadoptitforexplainingthesentencefinalpositionofourthreeexpressions:itneitherexplainsthehigh

preferenceforfinalposition,northefactthattheyareindependentclauseswhereasparentheticalwithsubjectinversion

arenot:cf.ex.(8).OnthesameparadigmofilfautcroirequeP,wecanbuildilfautpenserqueP[oneshouldthinkthatP],il

fautenvisagerqueP[oneshouldforeseethatP],butnoneoftheseclauseshasdevelopedauseinsentencefinalposition

as theoneoffautcroire.

(18) Ilfaut envisagerquece n’estplusmonfrèreOneshouldforeseethatthatoneisn’t mybrotheranymore

(19) ??Cen’estplusmonfrère,fautenvisagerThatone isn’tmybrotheranymore,oneshouldforesee

(20) Ilfaut penserquecen’estplusmon frèreOneshouldthinkthatthatoneisn’tmy brotheranymore

(21) ??Cen’estplusmonfrère,fautpenserThatone isn’tmybrotheranymore,oneshouldthink

Suchacontrastalsoremainsunexplainedwiththeideathatthereisalinkbetweenthe‘‘recteurfaible’’useandthe

parenthetical one.

Atthepragmaticlevelthedescriptionsaremoreunified.TheviewofUrmson(1952)--accordingtowhichthemain

functionofRPCistolimitspeaker'scommitmentregardingthetruthoftheassertedproposition--iswidelyadopted.The

position(insertedorfinal)oftheRPCisusuallynotconsideredas relevant.Ourdescriptionwillconfirmthepragmatic

functionofmitigationbut willshowthatthepositionisnotirrelevanttofulfillsuchafunction.

MorelandDanon-Boileau(1998)considerparenthesisfromatextualpointofview.Theynotethatitenablesspeakers

tocommentontheirdiscourse(cf.Schneider,2007:34).

Ourhypothesiswillreinforcethelatterassumption.Wewillseeindeedthatthefinalpositionisparticularlyefficientfor

addingmaterialthatallowsthespeakertocommentonher/hisowndiscourse.But,incontrastwithmoststudies,werefuse

theideaofalinkbetweentheparentheticaluseoftheitemsanalyzedandthenotionof‘‘recteurfaible’’characterizingthe

(VthatClause)construction.Theuseofthesameverbinboth structuresisnotareasontohypothesizesomesortof

derivation process from the ‘‘recteurfaible’’ to the parenthetical useof the sameverb. Instead,we assumethat the

parentheticals are linked to their host at discourse level through a relationship between their dialogical uses as

independentutterances.

Inotherwords,wepostulatethattheexpressionsusedinthestructureexemplifiedby(7)endorseapragmaticfunction

similartotheonetheyhavewhentheyareusedasparentheticalsinmonologicaldiscourses.Thepreferenceforthefinal

position isa consequenceof thisdialogicalfunction. However,wedonot exclude that theycanbeinserted in other

positionswithasimilarfunction,sincesuchafunctionbecomes partoftheirmeaning.

2.3. Thecluesofalinktothehostclauseatdiscourselevel

Thethreeevidentialmarkersarelexicalizedinthesensethattheyhavepartiallylosttheircompositionality.Theverb

hasnoinflexion(#fallaitcroire[onehadtobelieve]/#ondira[onewillsay]/#paraîtra9[itwillseem])andthecliticscanor

havetoberemoved.Asalreadyseen,fautcroireisungrammatical insentencefinalpositionwiththecliticobjectand

unattestedwiththecliticsubject. However,paraîtisattestedin bothversionsinsentence finalposition(cf.(3)).

(6)

(22) -Bonjour,Lucas,souritMarie-Andrée,onnousaenvoyésici,tuypassestoustesaprès-midi,ilparaît.

HelloLucas,says Marie-Andrée,smiling,weweresenthere,youspendhereallyourafternoons,itseems

(Lang,2001)

The three expressions can be usedas independent utterances withthe sameformal properties. They can occurin

dialogicalcontextstoexpressa reactiontoaconfirmationrequestsharingthesamefeaturesoflexicalization.

(23) «Bonjourpetite!Eh!commetuvas!-Jesuispressée:ilyadesjourscommeça!-Fautcroire!»‘‘Hello,baby!

Well,howfastyougo?-Iaminahurry:therearedayslikethat!-Oneshouldbelieve’’(Bazin,1899).

(24) -Hein!Quoi?Ilsesauve!Well!What!Herunsaway!

Mongicourt,assissurle canapé,d’untonblagueur.-Ondirait!Mongicourt,sittingonthesofa,jokingly.-One

wouldsay(Feydeau,1914).

(25) -Etill’aimetoujourscettebonnefemme?Andhestilllovesthiswoman?

-Paraît.Itseems.(Queneau,1944)

Theverb hasnoinflexion:

(26) «Bonjourpetite!Eh!commetuvas!-Jesuispressée:ilyadesjourscommeça!-*Fallaitcroire!»‘‘Hello,baby!

Well,howfastyougo?-Iaminahurry:therearedayslikethat!-Onehad believed’’

(27) -Hein!Quoi?Ilsesauve!Well!What!Herunsaway!

Mongicourt,assis surlecanapé,d’untonblagueur.-*ondira/*-nousdirions!

Mongicourt,sittingonthesofa,jokingly.-onewill say/-wewouldsay.

(28) -Etill’aimetoujourscettebonnefemme?Andhestilllovesthiswoman?

-?Paraîtrait.10Itwouldseem.

Other lexicalized expressions used as confirmation in dialogical structures, have the ability to occur in the final

position.11Forinstance,amongthe‘‘weakverbs’’(ilmesemble,[itseemstome]ilparaît,[itseems]j’ail’impression,

[Ihavethefeeling]ondirait,[onewouldsay]jedirais[Iwouldsay])analysedbyWillemsandBlanche-Benveniste(2010),

j’ail’impressionandilsemble(andnotilmesemble)couldbeaddedtoourlist.Bothcanbeuseddialogicallyorinthefinal

positionwiththesamefeaturesoflexicalization:

(29) Lafourrure,cen’estpastellementtonstyle,j’ai l’impression.Furisnotreallyyour style,Ihavethefeeling.

(Mréjen,2004)

(30) Je reviensvousembêter carlesarticlesde Reviewer.frnesontànouveaupaspris encompteparGoogle

Actualitésdepuiscemidi.Ya-t-ildesralentissements?Iamcomingbacktobotheryoubecausethearticlesof

Reviewer.frareonemoretimenottakenintoaccountinGoogleActualitiessincemidday.Isthereanyslowdown?

-J’ail’impression,oui.Ihavethefeeling,yes.

(https://productforums.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/news-fr,05-25-2012)

j’ail’impressionusedasalexicalizedformcannotbemodifiedbypeut-être[perhaps].Whenthelatterisused,itselectsthe

full-fledgedinterpretationoftheconstruction.

(31) Je reviensvousembêter carlesarticlesde Reviewer.frnesontànouveaupaspris encompteparGoogle

Actualitésdepuiscemidi.Ya-t-ildesralentissements?Iamcomingbacktobotheryoubecausethearticlesof

Reviewer.frareonemoretimenottakenintoaccountinGoogleActualitiessincemidday.Isthereanyslowdown?

??J’aipeut-êtrel’impression,ouiIhaveperhapsthefeeling,yes/??J’aipeut-êtreeul’impression,ouiIhave

perhapshadthefeeling,yes

(32) Ilyalongtempsquejevisici.J’ail’impression...commentdire?...d’unrétrécissement...cemotpeutsembler

péjoratif...Non,riendetel.C’esttrèsdifficileàdire...Ihavebeenlivinghereforalongtime.Ihavethefeeling...

HowcouldIsay?...ofanarrowing...suchawordcouldseempejorative...No,itisnot.Itisdifficulttosay

(Bianciotti,1985)

10_{‘‘?’’}_indicates_that_there_is_no_attested_occurrence_of_the_form.

11_We_do_not_exclude_that_many_other_RPCs_could_integrate_this_paradigm,_such_as_je_pense,_je_crois_._._._The_possible_extension_of_the_paradigm

(7)

(33) Ilyalongtempsquejevisici.J’aipeut-êtrel’impression...commentdire?...d’unrétrécissement...cemotpeut

semblerpéjoratif...Non,riendetel.C’esttrèsdifficileàdire...Ihavebeenlivinghereforalongtime.Ihaveperhaps

thefeeling...HowcouldIsay?...ofanarrowing...suchawordcouldseempejorative...No,itisnot.Itisdifficulttosay

Inthefollowingexamples,il sembleislexicalized. Itcouldneither bemodifiedby‘‘peut-être’’,norcanthetensevary:

(34) -N’a-t-ilpasdespaquets?Hashenobag?

-Ilsemble.Itseems(Romains,1913)

??Ilsemble peut-êtreItseemsperhaps/??IlasembléItseemed

(35) -Est-ilassezgrand,ouiounon,poursavoircequ’ilaàfaire?Isheoldenough,yesorno,toknowwhathehastodo?

-Ilsemble.Itseems(Romains,1922)

??Ilsemble peut-êtreItseemsperhaps/??IlasembléItseemed

(36) Etpuis,vousavezété recommandé,ilsemble. Andyouhavebeenrecommendedby someone,itseems

(Sollers, 1987)

(37) Etpuis,vousavezétérecommandé,??ilsemblepeut-être/??ilasemblé.Andyouhavebeenrecommended

by someone,itseemsperhaps/Itseemed

Instead,Ilmesemblehasnofeatureoflexicalization.Whenuseddialogically,itisinterpretedasafull-fledgedclause:

(38) -Tucroisqueçasignifie quejesuisfaitepourlesfemmes?YoubelieveitmeansthatIpreferwomen?

-Jene saispas.Ilmesemble...Qu’enpenses-tu?Idon’tknow.Itseemstome...Whatdoyouthink?

(Monferrand,1991)

(39) -Tucroisqueçasignifie quejesuisfaitepourlesfemmes?YoubelieveitmeansthatIpreferwomen?

-Jenesaispas.Ilm’asemblé/Ilmesemblepeut-être...Qu’enpenses-tu?Idon’tknow,Itseemedtome/It

seemsperhapstome...Whatdoyouthink?

Thesetestsshowthatthethreeconstructions,whenuseddialogicallyasindependentutterances,shareexactlythe

samefeaturesastheexpressionsusedasRPCinmonologicaldiscourses.Soinsteadofestablishingalinkatasyntactic

levelwiththehostclause,weestablishalinkatthediscourselevel.ThespeakerusestheRPCinmonologicaldiscourses

as atool togiveadialogicalflavortoher/hisdiscourse.Itallowsthespeakertoreacttohis/herowndiscourseand to

confirmtheSoApreviouslyexpressed.Inthissense,itfulfillsthefunctionof‘comment’highlightedbyMoreland

Danon-Boileau(seeabove).ThefinalpositionisaconsequenceofthefundamentaldialogicalvalueoftheseRPCs.Thewaythey

workmakethemappeartobesimilartotheclausesof‘‘justificationsconfirmatives’’[confirmativejustifications]identified

byBéguelin(2010)intheinventoryofthefunctionsofparatacticsequences:‘‘[...]lasecondeclause[quicorrespondraità

nosRPC]reprendenécho,maisdemanièreabrégée,lecontenudelapremière,produisantuneffetdeconfirmationou

d’insistance’’(Béguelin,2010:21).[Thesecondclause[whichcorrespondstoourRPC]repeatsinasummarizedformthe

contentofthefirstone, producingaconfirmativeoranemphaticeffect].

However,inthecaseofourRPCs,thereisnoexplicitreiterationofthecontentofthefirstclause.Theuseoftheclitic

objectle[it],whichindicatestherepetitionofthecontent,makesthesentenceillformed,asalreadyseenwithexample

(15).Thisisbecausethepresenceofthecliticwouldunderlineatextuallinkbetweenbothclauseswhichwouldcancel

theirfundamentallydialogicalrelationship.Inshort,weassumethatthesalientpropertiesoftheevidentialRPCsaretheir

abilitytostressalinkatthediscourselevel.ThehostclauseisconceivedasaconfirmationrequestandtheevidentialRPC

isusedtoaddressan answertothisrequest.Sucha discourseprocess involvesamitigation ofthehostclause:the

confirmationexpressedbytheRPCjeopardizesthereliabilityoftheSoAexpressedinthehostclause.12Itisthroughthis

functionthattheyacquireanevidentialvalue,as itwillbeseeninthenextsection.

3. Theevidentialvalue

3.1. Thecontributionofthedialogicalfunctiontothegeneralevidentialmeaning

Thedialogicalfeaturesoftheseexpressionsdetermineinparttheirevidentialmeaning.In‘real’dialogicalcontexts,

theyallowthespeakertoconfirmaSoAby makinganallusiontothecommonknowledge.Inthisdialog:

12_The_discourse_pattern_--_rhetorical_question_and_answer _--_crystalized_with_some_RPCs_is_a_very_common_way_of _introducing_topics_in

monologicaldiscourses:_‘‘18mai2012--Aurait-ilsurestimésescapacitésvocales?Ehbienoui!_’’Wouldhehaveoverratedhisvoice?Well,yes! (http://www.lexpress.fr/culture/musique/donna-summer-l-hommage-2-0_1115905.html05-18-12).Thespeakerpretendstodoubtthevalidityof theideaexpressedinthequestion,andthen,she/heanswersthequestionhe/shehasherself/himselfasked.

(8)

(40) -Mincealors,fit-il, l’autresalaudluiaraconté?Damn,hesays,thebastardhastold himthestory?

-Fautcroire. Oneshouldbelieve(Clavel, 1962).

Fautcroireoranyotherexpression(ondirait,paraît,ilsemble,j’ail’impression)conveysaninterpretationwherethe

speakerconfirmstheSoAexpressedinthequestionbymakinganallusiontosomesharedknowledge.Ifthespeaker

knowsthatsomeonetoldthestorytotheprotagonistbecausehe/shewaspresentduringthediscussion,she/hewouldnot

sayfautcroire/ondirait/paraît/j’ail’impressionorilsembletoanswerthequestion.Forinstance,theseformscouldnot

beusedinthefollowingdialog:

(41) -Mincealors,fit-il, l’autresalaudluiaraconté?Damn,hesays,thebastardhastold himthestory?

-??[Fautcroire./Ondirait./Paraît/J’ail’impression/Ilsemble],j’yétais.Oneshouldbelieve/Onewouldsay

/Itseems/Ihavethe feeling/Itseems,Iwaspresent

Thespeakercoulduseoui[yes]instead:

(42) -Mincealors,fit-il, l’autresalaudluiaraconté?

-Oui,j’yétais.Yes, Iwaspresent

Tosumup,theevidentialmeaningoffautcroire/ondirait/paraît/j’ail’impressionorilsemblecanconfirmaSoAby

indicatinganindirectsharedknowledge.

Inmonologicalcontexts,theevidentialvalueisnearlyidenticaltotheoneindialogicalcontexts.Thespeakerindicates

that he/shehasindirectsharedevidenceto communicatewhatissaid inthe hostutterance.Such anindicationisa

projection of their dialogical use. The following constraints characterizing their use add supporting evidence to this

evidentialmeaning.

1.TheSoAmodifiedbythem isaconjecturenotafact thatcanbe directlyobserved.

(43) [Paulestdevantmoi]??Paulestarrivé,fautcroire/ondirait/paraît/j’ail’impression/ilsemble.13[Paulisin

frontofme]Paulhasarrived,one shouldbelieve...

2.TheSoAcannotbeaninferencethatonlythespeakerisabletomake:

(44) Jemedisais:‘‘SiPhilippesaitquePetitTitouavul’intérieurducoffre,ildoitêtreinquiet,ilestrestédansles

paragespourl’observer.[...]’’Iwasthinking:‘‘ifPhilippeknowsthatPetitTitouhasseenwhatisinsidethechest,

hemustbeworried;hestayedaroundsomewheretokeepaneyeonhim(Japrisot,1966).

(45) SiPhilippesaitquePetitTitouavu l’intérieurdu coffre,ilestinquiet,??[fautcroire/ondirait/paraît/j’ai

l’impression/ilsemble]ilestrestédanslesparagespourl’observer.Iwasthinking:‘‘ifPhilippeknowsthatPetit

Titouhasseenwhatisinsidethechest,heisworriedoneshouldbelieve...;hestayedaroundsomewhereto

keepaneyeonhim

3.They cannotbe insertedin anutterancethatthe speakerrefusestoendorsedirectlyafterwards:

(46) Onditquelarévolutionasupprimélanoblesse;maisc’esttoutlecontraire,elleafaittrente-quatremillionsde

nobles...Onesaysthattherevolutionhasabolishedthenobility;butonthecontraryitmadethirty-fourmillionsof

noblemen(Michelet,1846).

(47) ??Larévolutionasupprimélanoblesse,paraît/ondirait/fautcroire/j’ail’impression/ilsemble;maisc’est

toutlecontraire,elleafaittrente-quatremillionsdenoblesTherevolutionhasabolishedthenobilityoneshould

believe...;butonthe contraryitmade thirty-fourmillionsofnoblemen

Onditque,whichalludestoanothersourcefromthespeaker,enablesher/himtorejectthepointofviewborrowed,in

his/hersubsequentdiscourse.Thisisnotthecaseofourmarkers.Theymeanthatthespeakerdoesendorsewhathe/she

communicatesin thehostutterance,evenif he/sheputssomedistance withit.

13_An_ironic_{interpretation}_makes_the_example_natural,_but_in_this_case_the_speaker_makes_fun_of_Paul_acting_as_if_he/she_has_not_noticed_his

(9)

Alltheseconstraintsareconsequencesoftheirbasicdialogicalfunction.Thehostclauseshouldbeinterpretedasan

assessmenttobeconfirmed.Therefore,itcannotbeapersonalinferencefromthespeaker,sinceitmakesnosenseto

confirmone'sowninferences.Itcanneitherbeadirectperception,becauseitcannotbeinterpretedasanassessmenttobe

confirmed.Finally,itcannotbeanutterancethatthespeakerrefusestoendorseinher/hisfollowingdiscourse,becauseour

markersindicatethatthespeakerconfirmtheinformationconveyedinthehostclause.Thesecharacteristicsarecommonto

allthesemarkers.Buteachofthemalsoexpressessomeparticularevidentialmeaningthatwewillbeexaminedinthenext

section.

3.2. ThecontributionofthesemanticsoftheverbtotheevidentialmeaningofeachRPC

TheconfirmationconveyedbyfautcroireisbasedonanindicationthattheSoAcanbeassumedbecauseitisfunded

on obvious clues. This iswhy the RPCseems to endorse an evidentialmeaning of ‘inference’. Forinstance, in the

followingexamples,thespeakercomments truismswithfautcroire:

(48) On acequ’onméritefautcroire!Wehaveonlywhatwedeserve,one shouldbelieve!

(http://blogues.lapresse.ca/therrien/2012/04/12/mongrain-sen-va/04-13-2012)

(49) Jamaisjen’auraisimaginérevivreuncertaintempsensaprésence,maisilnefautjamaisdirejamaisfautcroire.

Iwouldneverhaveimaginedtoliveagainsometimewithhim,butoneshouldneversayneveroneshouldbelieve

(http://mamancoach.blogspot.ch/2011_05_01_archive.html05-14-2011)

TheeasyuseoffautcroirewithtruismsisduetothefactthatitallowsthespeakertoactasiftheSoAwereworthtobe

said.Withoutfautcroire,theutteranceor‘‘onaquecequ’onmérite’’[wehaveonlywhatwedeserve]or‘‘ilnefautjamais

dire jamais’’ [oneshould never saynever] isinterpretedas non-informative. Withfaut croire,it isreinterpreted asan

assumption(eveniftheSoFexpressed isself-obvious)thattheuseoffautcroire confirmsretroactively.

Theindicationofobviousnessislinkedtothelexicalvalueoftheverbfalloir,alwayspresentintheRPC.Thesequence

withbothclitics(subjectandobject)ilfautlecroire[oneshouldbelieveit]canbeusedwithacompositionalmeaning.In

suchause,itexpressesthenecessitytobelieveinaparticularSoA,becauseofthepresenceofclues(mentionedornot)

thatprove thetruthofit.

(50) -Est-ceque,parhasard,pensais-je,j’enseraistombéamoureuxaujourd’hui,sanslesavoir?Ilfautlecroire,

puisquevoilàHurielquim’ypousse,etdontl’œil aurasaisilavéritésurmafigure. Didby anychance,Iwas

thinking,Ifallinlovewithhertoday,withoutknowingit?Onehastobelieveit,becausehereisHurielwhomakes

medo it,andwhoseeyewillhavenoticedthe truthon myface(Sand,1865).

Thecliticpronounle[it]referstothecontentofthequestionandthecluesonwhichtheanswerby‘‘ilfautlecroire’’is

basedaregivenjustaftersince.The necessityverbfalloirhasitsfulllexicalvalue.When thesequence isusedasa

lexicalized item,theobviousnessmeaningstandsinforthenecessitynuance.

Theconfirmationexpressedbyondiraitisbasedonasensorialperception(visualinmostcases).ThisiswhytheRPC

seemstoendorseanevidentialperceptivemeaning.Whenthespeakercommunicatesanassessmentthatcanonlyrely

onavisualperception,ondiraitismorenaturalthanthetwootherevidentialmarkers.Inthefollowingcontext,thespeaker

looksatherfriend andthinksthatshelookspregnant.

(51) Maistuesenceinte,ondirait!Butyouarepregnant,onewouldsay

Using fautcroireouparaîtwouldbeverystrangein thiscontext:

(52) Maistuesenceinte,#[fautcroire/paraît]14!Butyouarepregnant,one shouldbelieve/itseems

Inthenextexample,thecontextindicatesthattheSoAisobtainedbyaphysicalperception.

(53) Jeretournepasàlamaison.Lesmurstremblentcommetout.J’aitroppeurquelesplafondsmedégringolent

dessus. Idon’t comebackhome.Thewalls areshaking.Iamtooafraidthat theroofmightfalloverme.

-Çasecalme,ondirait. Itisgettingquiet,onewould say(Bory,1945)

14_Both_of_them_could_be_used_but_with_a_different_{interpretation:}_faut_croire_indicates_that_the_clue_is_not_what_the_speaker_has_observed_but_some

otherindicationthatleadsnaturallytothisremark.Paraîtdoesnotcommunicateanyindicationontheclueonwhichthespeakerbaseshis/her remark.

(10)

Neitherfautcroirenorparaîtarenatural insuchacontext:

(54) Jeretournepasàlamaison.Lesmurstremblentcommetout.J’aitroppeurquelesplafondsmedégringolent

dessus. Idon’tgo comebackhome. Thewallsareshaking.Iamtooafraid thattheroofmightfalloverme.

-Çasecalme,??[fautcroire /paraît].Itisgettingquiet,oneshouldbelieve/itseems

Intheexample below,anacousticperceptionisattheoriginoftheinformation:

(55) Jecollel’oreille.Plusrien...[...].Unefenêtres’ouvretoutàcoup.Au-dessusdenous,ondirait.Iamlistening.No

morenoise.Suddenly,awindowopens.Upstairs, onewouldsay(Boudard,1963).

Theuseoffautcroireorparaîtcancelstheacousticsourceleadingtotheconjecture:

(56) Jecollel’oreille.Plusrien...[...]Unefenêtres’ouvretoutàcoup.Au-dessusdenous,fautcroire/paraît.Iam

listening. Nomorenoise.Suddenly,awindowopens.Upstairs, oneshouldbelieve/itseems

The perceptionconveyedby on dirait comes fromitsdicendi meaning. On dirait literallycommunicates whatone

shouldsay,ifaparticularSoAwerenoticed.Theconditionalbringsanindicationofcautionwhichgivesrisetothemeaning

ofvaguefeeling.

(57) Sil’onsavaitcela,l’ondirait queMadeleineestfolle.Ifweknewthis,wewouldsaythat Madeleineiscrazy

(Gautier, 1836)

Inthisexample,ondiraitisinterpretedasadicendiverbusedintheconditionalmood.Butwithouttheif-clause,itcan

alsobeinterpretedasanevidentialverb.Inthelattercase,theinterpretationcorrespondsto:onal’impressionque...

[wehavethefeelingthat...].Inexample(2)ondiraitisusedasaRPC,butitisalsoambiguous.Itcanbeinterpretedas‘‘si

onvoyaitlesavionsdeprès,ondiraitqu’ilsfrôlentlesarbres’’[ifwerelookingcloselyattheplanes,wewouldsaythatthey

nearlytouchthetrees]orasanevidentialmarker.InthiscaseitisequivalenttotheRPC‘‘j’ail’impression’’:‘‘Lesavions

sontmaintenanttoutprès.Ilsfrôlentlesarbres,j’ail’impression’’[Theplanesarenowveryclose.Theynearlytouchthe

trees,Ihavethefeeling].Sincethesequenceislexicalized,thedicendimeaningisoverandtheRPCexpressesasimilar

meaningtoj’ail’impression.

Theconfirmationexpressedbyparaît,isbasedonavisualperceptionwhoseoriginisdissimulated.Inacontextwhere

thesourceisapreciseclue(forinstancethespeakerseesthelightinPaul'sflat)she/hewouldnotsay:

(58) #Paul estlà,paraît.Paulhasarrived, itseems

Withparaîttheutteranceisinterpretedasalludingnottothelight,buttosomeotherinformation,thesourceofwhich

remainsundetermined.Suchanevidentialmeaningissimilartoaweak‘hearsay’.Onditqueforinstance,whichconveys

a‘real’‘hearsay’,allowsthespeakernottoendorsethetruthofthepropositionalcontent.Suchaninterpretationisnot

possible with paraît, as seen in example (47). The example below shows that paraît does not allude to the visual

perceptionofthespeakerbuttosomeinformationwhoseoriginisnotcommunicated.

(59) C’estainsiqu’ellepritl’habitudedevenirlevoiràtouteheure.Aquelquetempsdelà,iladvintqu’elleredescendit

avecunedecesbabiolesqu’onlesportecommebracelets,c’estlemotpourcettesorted’objet,mêmequ’ilen

avaitd’enroulésàsesbras,lemort,unbraceletwampum,etunbeau,paraît.Thussheusedtocomeandsee

him,atanytime.Later,shesometimeswentbackdownstairswithsometrinketthatwewearlikebracelets,thatis

thewordforthissortofthing,thedeadhadoneofthesearoundthearm,abraceletwampum,andaniceone,it

seems.(Aragon,1926).

Thenextexample highlightstheambiguous interpretationofparaîtbetweenperceptiveand evidentialmeaning:

(60) -T’esun sacrétireur,garsClaudius,paraîtbien!You areahellofshooter,chapClaudius,itseemswell

(Chevallier,1934)

Theperceptivemeaningisstillpresentwiththeuseofbien,butparaîtcanalsobeinterpretedasconveyingaweak

(11)

Theindeterminationoftheperceptionconveyedbytheevidentialmeaningofparaîtcomesfromtheimpersonaluseof

theverb.Paraîtreusedas afull-fledgedverbindicatesthatthespeakerhasapersonalinterpretationofher/hisvisual

perception.Inanutterancesuchas:

(61) PaulparaîtpâlePaullookspale

thespeakersaysthathe/shehasthepersonalassessmentofinterpretingthecolorofPaul'sfaceaspale.Whatis

surprisingwiththeevidentialvalueisthatparaîtnolongerindicatestheperceptionofthespeaker.Intheexamplebelow:

(62) Paulest pâle,paraîtPaulispale,itseems

theperceptionofPaul'sfacecannotbeinterpretedastheoneofthespeaker.She/Heconveysanassessmentthatshe/

he hasnot establishedherself/himself.Such an apparentsemantic change isdueto theimpersonal useof theverb

paraître.Thepersonattheoriginoftheperceptiondisappears.Whenonesays‘‘Paulparaîtpâle’’[Paulseemspale],the

hearerknowsthatthespeakerisattheoriginofthevisualperception.Butwhenonesays‘‘IlparaîtquePaulestpâle’’,[it

seemsthatPaulispale]thehearerhasnoinformationontheoriginofit.Thisiswhytheevidentialmeaningcorrespondsto

aweakhearsay,as perfectlyillustratedbytheexamplebelow:

(63) [...]maiscettemaisonappartenaitdoncàM.DeSaint-Méranavantquevousnel’achetiez,Monsieurlecomte?

-Ilparaîtqueoui,réponditMonte-Cristo.ButthishousebelongedtoMr.DeSaint-Méranbeforeyouboughtit,Mr.

theCount?-- Itseemsthat yes,answered MonteCristo.

-Comment,ilparaît!Vousnesavezpasàquivousavezachetécettemaison?How,itseems!Youdonotknow

fromwhomyouboughtthishouse?

-Mafoinon,c’estmonintendantquis’occupedetouscesdétails.Well,no,itismytreasurerwhotakescareof

thesedetails.(DumasPère,1846)

The reaction(How, it seems!)of the speaker showsthat he is fully awarethat Monte Cristo, using il paraît que,

dissimulateshisknowledge.Yet,theinformationintroducedbyilparaîtqueisstillnotdubious,becausetheideaofvisual

perceptionremainspresent.ItexplainswhythespeakercannotrejecttheSoAafterwardscf.(47).

Inshort,theevidentialmeaningofeachmarkerisconveyed,ononehand,bytheirdialogicalpropertiesandonthe

otherhand, bythelexicalmeaningoftheirverb.

4. Theoreticalissues

Ourstudyhasshownthattheevidentialmeaningcannotbeconsideredasaprimitivesemanticvalue,butoccursin

relationtoapluralityoffactors.Syntax,semanticsandpragmaticsplayaroleinthe constitutionofthismeaning.

Ontheonehand,thefinalpositionoftheRPCsanalyzedisconsistentwiththeillocutionaryfunctionofconfirmationon

anassessment,whichgivesrisetoanevidentialmeaningofindirectsharedknowledge.OnecanonlyconfirmaSoAthat

he/she hasnotestablished by himself/herself.Thisfunction obliteratesthe different lexicalmeaning ofeachmarker.

ThereforenoneoftheseRPCscanoccurinacontextwherethespeakerhasadirectaccesstothereportedknowledgecf.

(43).

On the other hand, the semantic kind of modality allows them to convey one particular evidential meaning:

‘obviousness’forfautcroirewhichgivesrisetoaninferentialevidentialmeaning,‘vagueperception’forondiraitwhich

givesrisetoaperceptiveevidentialmeaning,and‘dissimulationoftheexactsource’forparaît,whichgivesrisetoaweak

hearsayevidentialmeaning.

Acknowledgements

Ithankthe twoanonymousreviewersfortheirhelpfulsuggestionsandconstructivecriticismsofan earlierdraft.

References

Béguelin,Marie-José,2010.Noyauxprédicatifsjuxtaposés.In:Béguelin,M.-J.,Avanzi,M.,Corminbœuf,G.(Eds.),Laparataxe,Tome1.Lang, Berne, pp.1--34.

Blanche-Benveniste,Claire,1989.Constructionsverbales‘‘enincises’’etrectionfaibledesverbes.RecherchessurleFrançaisParlé9,53--73. Blanche-Benveniste,Claire,Willems,Dominique,2007.Unnouveauregardsurlesverbesfaibles.BulletindelaSociétéLinguistiquedeParis102

(12)

Brinton,LaurelJ.,2007.ThedevelopmentofImean:implicationsforthestudyofhistoricalpragmatics.In:Fitzmaurice,S.,Taavitsainen,I.(Eds.), MethodsinHistoricalPragmatics.MoutondeGruyter,Berlin, pp.37--80.

Damourette,Jacques,Pichon,Edouard,1933.DesmotsàlaPensée.EssaideGrammairedelaLangueFrançaise.1911--1933.TomeTroisième: Morphologieduverbe,StructuredelaPhraseVerbale,Infinitive.D’Artrey,Paris.

Dendale,Patrick,Tasmowski,Liliane,2001.Introduction.Evidentialityandrelatednotions.JournalofPragmatics33(3),339--348. Morel,Mary-Annick,Danon-Boileau,Laurent,1998.GrammairedeL’intonation.L’exempleduFrançais.Ophrys,Paris.

Rossari,Corinne,2012.Valeurévidentielleet/oumodaledefautcroire,ondiraitetparaît.LangueFrançaise173,65--81.

Schneider,Stefan,2007.ReducedParentheticalClausesasMitigators.StudiesinCorpusLinguistics27.Benjamins,Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Urmson,JamesO.,1952.Parentheticalverbs.Mind61,480--496.

Willems,Dominique,Blanche-Benveniste,Claire,2010.Verbes_{‘faibles’}etverbesàvaleurépistémiqueenfrançaisparlé:ilmesemble,ilparaît, j’ail’impression,ondirait,jedirais.In:Iliescu,M.,al,(Eds.),ActesduXXVeCongrèsInternationaldeLinguistiqueetdePhilologieRomanes, Septembre2007,TomeIV,DeGruyter,Innsbruck, pp.565--579.

CorinneRossariisAssociateProfessorofFrenchlinguisticsattheUniversityofFribourg(Switzerland).Shehaspublishedandeditedseveral booksonlinguisticchangeanddiscoursemarkers.ThelatestareGrammaticalizationandPragmatics:facts,approaches,theoreticalissues (StudiesinPragmatics5,Elsevier,2009),andLesmoyensdétournésd’assurersondire(Pressesdel’UniversitédeParis-Sorbonne,2007),both writtenwiththecollaborationofherPh.D.students(AnneBeaulieu-Masson,CorinaCojocariu,AnnaRazgouliaeva,ClaudiaRicci,andAdriana Spiridon).Herresearchinterestsliemainlywithinthefieldsofpragmatics,semanticchanges,rhetoric,argumentationandvarietiesofFrench.