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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

From mirativity to argumentation

A case of discursive mirativity

 | Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.06ari
Abstract
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.
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
References (26)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Grammaticalization, polysemy and iterated modality: The case of should . Corela, 5(1). [URL].
(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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). La modalité appréciative: vers une sémantique de good . Anglophonia, 191. [URL].
Behre, F. (1950). The origin and early history of meditative-polemic should in that clauses. Göteborgs Högsolas Arsskrift, 56(3), 275–309.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1955). Meditative-polemic should in Modern English that-clauses . Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourdier, V. (2015). Should après un adjectif de valuation : Un marqueur inattendu? Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 60(2), 187–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culioli, A. (1968). La formalisation en linguistique. Les Cahiers pour l’Analyse, 91, 106–117Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1974). A propos des énoncés exclamatifs. Langue française, 221, 6–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 11, 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Desurmont, C. (2016). L’adjectif appréciatif nice : observations sur la nature variable de la prédication. Corela, 14(1). [URL].
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B. (1988). Should and would in factual that-clauses. English Studies, 69(1), 72–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. (1966). The Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pennec, B. (2011). After all: l’introducteur d’une résurgence. Cercles, 201, 154–169.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2011). Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(5), 411–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuels, M. L. (1957). Review of Behre 1955. The Review of English Studies, 81, 343–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skorin-Kapov, J. (2015). The aesthetics of desire and surprise. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeevat, H. (2009). “Only” as a mirative particle. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 33(1–2), 179–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Arigne, Viviane
2025. Necessity and possibility: variations and mirror games. In Possibility and Necessity [Studies in Language Companion Series, 237], ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Larreya, Paul
2025. Chance, necessity, mirativity and a few other modal notions. In Possibility and Necessity [Studies in Language Companion Series, 237], ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue