Cover not available

Article published In: Evidentiality, Modality and Grammaticalization
Edited by Eric Mélac
[Studies in Language 48:3] 2024
► pp. 682–722

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

Frequency differences in reportative exceptionality and how to account for them

A case study on verbal reportative markers in French, Dutch and German

ORCiD logo with link | University of Antwerp
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Antwerp.

Published online: 29 January 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23014.mor
Abstract
Reportative evidential markers are – in contrast to other evidential markers – compatible with distancing interpretations, in which the speaker denies the truth of what is being reported. This exceptional behaviour of reportatives is termed ‘reportative exceptionality’ (AnderBois, Scott. 2014. On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. Proceedings of SALT 241. 234–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In this paper, which addresses French, Dutch and German reportative markers, we argue that they differ with respect to the frequency with which such distancing interpretations actually arise. The French reportative conditionnel most frequently occurs with distancing interpretations, whereas German sollen hardly occurs with this function. Dutch zou takes up an intermediate position. It is claimed that the higher compatibility of the conditionnel with distancing interpretations can be accounted for by a number of factors: its general preference for contexts in which other perspectives than the speaker’s are highly salient; the fact that it has past tense morphology; and its general semantic make-up in which the marking of hypotheticality is a key function.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reportative evidentiality vs. quotative markers; reportative exceptionality
  • 3.French conditionnel, Dutch zou + inf, German sollIND + inf: An overview
    • 3.1Present-day semantics and use
    • 3.2Diachrony: A contrastive analysis of French, Dutch and German
  • 4.Reportative markers in French, Dutch and German: A comparative case study
    • 4.1French conditionnel, Dutch zou + inf, German sollIND + inf: Similarities and differences
    • 4.2Reportative exceptionality (RE)
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (44)
References
Abouda, Lotfi. 2001. Les emplois journalistique, polémique et atténuatif du conditionnel. Un traitement unitaire. In Patrick Dendale & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Le conditionnel en français, 277–294. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra (ed.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2014. On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. Proceedings of SALT 241. 234–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Azzopardi, Sophie. 2011. Le Futur et le Conditionnel: valeur en langue et effets de sens en discours. Analyse contrastive espagnol / français. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry. PhD dissertation.
Baumann, Carolin. 2017. Bedeutung und Gebrauch der deutschen Modalverben. Lexikalische Einheit als Basis konzeptueller Vielfalt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bres, Jacques, Sophie Azzopardi & Sophie Sarrazin. 2012. Le conditionnel en français: énonciation, ultériorité dans la passé et valeurs modales. Faits de langues 401. 37–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bres, Jacques. 2010. Alors comme ça, le conditionnel serait une forme dialogique.... In Marion Colas-Blais, Mohamed Kara, Laurent Perrin & André Petitjean (eds.), La polyphonie en langue et en discours. Modèles et réflexions théoriques, 201–225. Metz: Presses universitaires de Metz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Le conditionnel en français: un état de l’art. Langue française 2001. 5–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle & Ingrid van Alphen. 2012. Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celle, Agnès. 2006. Temps et modalité. L’anglais, le français et l’allemand en contraste. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Analyse unifiée du conditionnel de non prise en charge en français et comparaison avec l’anglais. In Louis de Saussure, Jacques Moeschler & Genoveva Puskas (eds.), Études sémantiques et pragmatiques sur le temps, l’aspect et la modalité (Cahiers Chronos 19), 43–61. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Hearsay adverbs and modality. In Raphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Modality in English, theory and description, 269–293. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dendale, Patrick & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). 2001. Le conditionnel en français. Paris: Klincksiek.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dendale, Patrick. 2001. Les problèmes linguistiques du conditionnel français. In Patrick Dendale & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Le conditionnel en français, 7–18. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Évidentialité ou non-prise en charge ? Le cas du conditionnel épistémique en français. Une réanalyse. Langue française 2001. 63–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German. Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Kategorien der Redewiedergabe im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 41(3). 443–471. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2019. The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives. Semantics and Pragmatics 12(8). 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fritz, Gerd. 1991. Deutsche Modalverben 1609 – Epistemische Verwendungsweisen. Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 1131. 28–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haillet, Patrick. 1998. Le conditionnel d’altérité énonciative et les formes du discours rapport dans la presse écrite. Pratiques 1001. 63–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Le conditionnel en français: une approche polyphonique. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harmes, Ingeborg. 2017. A synchronic and diachronic study of the Dutch Auxiliary “Zou(den)”. In Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Gerda Haßler & Marta Carretero (eds.), Evidentiality revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives, 149–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larreya, Paul. 2012. Irrealis, past time reference and modality. In Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer & Manfred Krug (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 21–46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Letnes, Ole. 2008. Quotatives sollen und Sprecherhaltung. In Ole Letnes, Eva Maagerø & Heinz Vater (eds.), Modalität und Grammatikalisierung, 23–37. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mélac, Eric. 2014. L’évidentialité en anglais – approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus anglais-tibétain. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle Paris III. PhD thesis.
Merle, Jean-Marie. 2004. Les énoncés au conditionnel ‘journalistique’: un cas particulier de style indirect libre? Bulletin de la Société de stylistique anglaise. Stylistique et énonciation: le cas du discours indirect libre (spécial), 229–248.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michael, Lev D. 2012. Nanti self-quotation: Implications for the pragmatics of reported speech and evidentiality. Pragmatics and Society, 3(2). Available at: [URL] (last access 1 October 2023).
Mortelmans, Tanja. 2000. On the evidential nature of the epistemic use of the German modals müssen and sollen. In Johan van der Auwera & Patrick Dendale (eds.), Modal verbs in Germanic and Romance languages, 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Erscheinungsformen der indirekten Rede im Niederländischen und Deutschen zou-, soll(te)- und der Konjunktiv I. In Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds.), Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, 171–190. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. Evidentiality in Dutch. In Björn Wiemer & Juana I. Marin-Arrese (eds.), Evidential marking in European languages: Toward a unitary comparative account, 95–136. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patard, Adeline & Walter De Mulder. 2012. L’évolution des usages du conditionnel en français. Faits des langues 401. 29–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patard, Adeline. 2017. Du conditionnel comme constructions ou la polysémie du conditionnel. Langue française 194(2). 105–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schenner, Mathias. 2010. Embedded evidentials in German. In Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages, 157–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1). 119–159. Available at: (last access 1 October 2023).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, Jessica. 2021. Le conditionnel de reprise en français. Une étude de son origine et de son évolution de sens. Antwerp: University of Antwerp PhD dissertation.
Vanderbiesen, Jeroen. 2014. wollen: On the verge between quotative and reportive evidential. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2(1). 167–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The grounding functions of German reportives and quotatives. Studies van de BKL/Travaux du CBL/Papers of the LSB 91. 16–39. Available at: [URL] (last access: 1 October 2023).
. 2016. Mixed viewpoints and the quotative-reportive cline in German: Reported speech and reportive evidentiality. In Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning. Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities, 41–91. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2018. Evidentials and epistemic modality. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 85–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Mélac, Eric
2024. The links between evidentiality, modality, and grammaticalization. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 513 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 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