Affiliation:
1. Department of Romance and Classical Languages , University of Craiova, Faculty of Letters , Craiova , Romania
Abstract
Abstract
The paper emphasizes the pragmatic and discursive extensions of a special verbal structure – at its origin, a Future Tense form – known in Romanian linguistics as presumptive mood (hereinafter: PRESUMPT). In terms of evidentiality, the PRESUMPT has two types of meanings: an inferential meaning, expressing an inference-based supposition, and also a reportative meaning, when the utterer does not take responsibility for the truthfulness of information from another source. These significances are very subtle and closely related to their context of use. That is why, sometimes, it is very difficult to distinguish one value from another. Therefore, Romanian PRESUMPT deploys in discourse pragmatic enrichments depending on the syntactic-enunciative structure it is inserted in or on some other parameters, such as: speaker’s epistemic stance, genre of discourse, intersubjectivity, and extends its core meaning of evidentiality through a range of discursive dimensions. Considering this situation, our approach outlines that a complex rhetorical strategy is involved in such contexts, where the PRESUMPT actualizes in fact only its prototypical feature [+placement in a subsequent relation (“ultériorité” – see Bres 2012. Conditionnel et ultériorité dans le passé: De la subjectivité à l’objectivité. In SHS Web of Conferences, Volume 1 (3ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française), 1719–1730.)], exclusively marking the relation of subsequence of the hypothesis or of the quoted speech act (in counter-argumentative frames) compared to a previously mentioned state of facts.
Reference31 articles.
1. Bermúdez, Fernando W. 2005. Evidencialidad. La codificación lingüística del punto de vista. Stockholm: Stockholm University doctoral dissertation.
2. Bres, Jacques. 2012. Conditionnel et ultériorité dans le passé: De la subjectivité à l’objectivité. In SHS Web of Conferences, Volume 1 (3ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française), 1719–1730. Available at: http://www.linguistiquefrancaise.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/shsconf/pdf/2012/01/shsconf_cmlf12_000037.pdf.
3. Călăraşu, Cristina. 1997. Timp, Mod, Aspect în Limba Română în Secolele al XVI-lea – al XVIII-lea. Bucureşti: Tipografia Universităţii din Bucureşti.
4. Camus, Albert. 1993. Caligula. Le malentendu, collection «Folio». Paris: Gallimard.
5. Corcheş, Cristina & Diana Roman. 2011. Observations on the regenerative capacity of grammatical structures: The Romanian present presumptive. In Tomiţă Ciulei, Cristian Sandache & Antonio Sandu (eds.), Logos, Universalitate, Mentalitate, Educaţie, Noutate. Secţiunea Filosofie şi Ştiinţe Umaniste/Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty. Section: Philosophy and Humanistic Sciences, vol. 1, 309–324. Iaşi: Lumen.