Printer Friendly

Dizque: a Colombian evidentiality strategy.

Abstract

Dizque has developed from the verb decir 'say' and the complementizer que, originating in a phrase meaning something like 'it is said that'. This article presents an analysis of this expression as used in contemporary Colombian Spanish based on a corpus of naturally occurring spoken and written data. It is shown that the range of use of dizque extends from functioning as a purely evidential marker, encoding reported speech and hearsay with a notion of doubt implied in some contexts, to a marker of epistemic modality, encoding extensions of the notion of doubt implied in its evidential use and nothing about source of information. This development is particularly interesting because it mirrors that seen for reported evidentials in languages that have a grammaticized system of evidentiality. This demonstrates that lexical and grammatical evidential devices may follow similar paths of semantic change, and suggests that this specific change, from reported speech to doubt, is representative of a cognitive phenomenon related to the nature of reported speech itself.

1. Introduction

It is well known that all languages have strategies for indicating the source of information, or evidentiality. In some languages, for example, Quechua, Tibetan and Macedonian (cf. articles in Chafe and Nichols 1986), evidentiality constitutes a fully grammaticized morphosyntactic category, which is obligatorily marked in certain contexts. Other languages, for example English and Spanish, have the option of encoding this information through the use of lexical devices, such as dicen que ... 'they say that ...', veo que ... 'I see that ...', supongo que ... 'I guess that ...'; el supuesto / presunto ... 'the alleged / presumed ...' and so on. I will refer to the former as "grammaticized evidentials", and the latter as "evidentiality strategies", following Aikhenvald (2004).

One evidentiality strategy that is particularly common in casual Colombian Spanish is dizque, literally 'it is said that'. Deriving from the verb decir 'say' its most common uses are to mark reported speech and hearsay, and as such it is often paraphrasable by dicen que 'they say that', or se dice que 'it is said that'. However, as an extension from this dizque also marks information as doubtful or false, where such paraphrases are no longer possible. This is related to the nature of reported speech: attributing an utterance to someone else allows the speaker to distance him/herself from the material being presented, and thus such an utterance can take on overtones of speaker doubt about the veracity of the information. In the case of dizque, while in some instances it carries merely overtones of doubt, in others it is apparent that the marker is used specifically to encode doubt or falsity. That is, what is present as a pragmatic inference in some contexts is conventionalized in others. In this sense, dizque functions as a strategy for encoding both evidentiality, indicating how the speaker has come to know the information being presented, and epistemic modality, indicating the speaker's degree of commitment to that information.

This article investigates the range of use of dizque, and how it extends from an evidential to an epistemic marker. It will be shown that the development of dizque mirrors that found for reported evidentials in languages that have a grammaticized system of evidentiality, demonstrating that both lexical and grammaticized systems are subject to the same kinds of pragmatically motivated change.

1.1. Evidentiality and epistemicity

The semantic change from reported speech to doubt is a regular cross-linguistic pattern that has been widely commented on in grammaticized evidential systems. Aikhenvald (2004) notes that reported evidentials often come to be interpreted as marking information the speaker does not vouch for (as is the case, for example, in Estonian and Tariana). MacDonald (1990: 41) observes that in many Papuan languages reported evidentials are used to "express false presuppositions". Donabedian (2001: 423-424) discusses a similar interpretation for a hearsay marker in Modern Western Armenian, which can give an utterance with an unattributable source a "polyphonous flavor", whereby "the speaker distances herself from claiming that the utterance is true. Bybee et al. (1994: 180) suggest that indirect evidentials in general (e.g., reported, noneyewitness, inferred) can take on epistemic meanings, implying doubt on the part of the speaker as to the truth of the information they present (as in the Chibchan language Guaymi, for example, 1994: 203). From a slightly different perspective, Curnow (2002, 2003) looks at what he terms "person effects", where evidentials take on different meanings with first-person participants. He notes that "reported evidentials are rarely used with firstperson subjects ... since if a speaker performed the action, they do not normally need to find out about it from others" (2003: 54). Cases where they may find out about it from others include actions that they do not remember, for example because they were too young when they happened, or because they were not in a full state of consciousness, such as when they were drunk or half asleep. In other contexts, however, he notes that reported evidentials with first-person subjects take on a notion of nonvolitionality, to indicate that the actions were performed involuntarily.

While research on the relationship between reported speech and doubt has been focused on languages with grammaticized evidential systems, this relationship is not limited to such languages. Romaine and Lange (1991: 232), for example, in their study of quotative like in English, argue that "information obtained through speech is not as reliable as information obtained through direct observation", and that like thus serves to mark "reduced responsibility and commitment to the truth of the report" (1991: 263). Such extensions are also found in gesture. For example, gestural quotation marks in English and Spanish attribute the proposition to a third party and also indicate that the speaker does not vouch for that information.

Thus, we have a very interesting cognitive phenomenon whereby information that is reported to us by others is not to be believed, or, more broadly, information that we did not obtain firsthand (indirect information) is not to be believed. This also demonstrates a tight link between evidentiality and epistemicity: we associate the source of information with the speaker's degree of commitment to that information (cf. Palmer 2001). However, it is important to note that though this link is widespread, it is not universal. De Haan (1999: 86), for example, points out that the understanding that "direct evidence (e.g., visual and auditory evidence) is more believable than indirect evidence (e.g., inference and hearsay)" does not hold for many languages, and argues on this basis that evidentiality and epistemicity are distinct phenomena. Lazard (2001) presents a similar interpretation. He looks specifically at the evidential marking of hearsay, inference and mirativity, and argues that these indirect evidentials create a distance between the speaker and the discourse by marking the speaker as distinct from the person who acquired the evidence for the proposition expressed. He proposes the term "mediative" to cover such markers that indicate that a statement is "mediated by (unspecified) references to the evidence" (2001: 362). He notes that this usage may be associated with doubt, but that such evidentials themselves are not dubitative, as in some languages (such as Nepali) they can be used without encoding any notion of doubt.

Following these authors, I will also draw a distinction between evidentiality and epistemicity. This proves to be of particular value for this study, as it allows us to recognize differences in the closely related uses of dizque. It will be shown that dizque is used both as a strict evidentiality strategy and as an epistemic marker. As an evidentiality strategy, its main function is to mark source of information, and the notion of doubt is available as a pragmatic inference according to the context, but is not inherent in the semantics of dizque itself. As a marker of epistemic stance, source of information is no longer encoded, and the notion of doubt has been conventionalized and has even been extended to one of nonvolitionality. Here we see a first-person effect, of the kind described by Curnow (2003).

Following an outline of the data used in this study, the literature on dizque will be reviewed, then the syntactic and semantic changes it has undergone will be described. This provides the background for the discussion of the semantics of the marker, where the relationship between its different uses will be considered in depth.

2. Data

The corpus on which the study is based consists of a combination of spoken and written data. The spoken data comprise seven hours of conversational Colombian Spanish (approximately 70,000 words) recorded in Colombia in 1997. The data were collected by two native speakers who recorded spontaneous conversations between themselves and their friends and family over a period of two months. The conversations have been transcribed in accordance with the approach developed at the University of California, Santa Barbara (cf. DuBois et al. 1992).

These 70,000 words present a total of 54 tokens of dizque. This is very frequent if we compare with Chafe's study of the use of "hearsay devices" in English, such as people say, they say, I've been told: in a corpus of conversational American English, Chafe reports that such devices occurred 0.4 times per 1000 words (1986: 268-269). Dizque alone, averaging 0.75 uses per 1000 words, thus occurs almost twice as frequently as this set of English devices.

In order to conduct a more detailed analysis, the conversational data are supplemented with examples taken from four contemporary Colombian novels (approximately 310,000 words). Dizque is a feature of informal language, and does not occur in formal speech or writing. The four novels used were chosen because they are written in the style of informal, first-person narratives. Two of the books, Castro Caycedo (1994) and Lara Salive (1994), are based on true life stories recorded by the authors. Although the stories are not reproduced verbatim, the authors have attempted to maintain the casual style in which they were first recorded. The other two, Franco (2001) and Vallejo (1994), are fiction, but are written in a style that gives the impression of a verbal narrative. Together, these four novels present a total of 73 tokens of dizque, the breakdown of which is given below.

As can be seen, the overall frequency of use is much lower in the written data than in the spoken data (0.25 and 0.75 tokens per 1000 words respectively), and even in the novels where dizque is used most frequently (Castro Caycedo 1994; Vallejo 1994), it occurs just over half as often as in the spoken corpus. This illustrates that despite the casual style in which these books are written, they still maintain aspects of the more formal written genre.

In sum, we have a total of 127 tokens of dizque, with roughly 40% coming from the conversational corpus and 60% from written narrative.

3. Dizque in the literature

There is very little research on the use of dizque, and to my knowledge there is no study that attempts to fully outline its range of use. Spanish dictionaries and grammars give it only cursory attention. It is described as an archaic form (Butt and Benjamin 2000: 389; VOX 1971: 633), used in Latin America (Butt and Benjamin 2000: 389; Collins Spanish Concise Dictionary 1993: 180). Butt and Benjamin state that dizque is often used to imply skepticism, but they do not indicate how else it is used (2000: 389). The translations given in Collins--'apparently, allegedly'--show a similar understanding (1993: 180), but this dictionary does not elaborate on how this meaning is expressed, nor on other uses dizque has.

Probably the most substantial study of dizque is a very early article by Kany (1944). Kany notes that it is rarely heard in Peninsular Spanish, but is widespread in American Spanish. He describes the "correct" use of dizque as an agentless (or impersonal) expression to introduce reported speech, from which it has come to function as "an adverb of doubt" that can, in some contexts, encode negation (1944: 171). To illustrate this, he presents the example el dizque lo hizo 'he is supposed to have done it', which also has the interpretation "it is doubtful whether he did it", and even "he probably did not do it". A wide number of examples from throughout Latin America are presented, though no detailed semantic analysis is given.

A particularly interesting, though brief, account of dizque is found in Company Company (forthcoming), in which she analyzes the process of development undergone by dizque from a construction made up of the verb decir and complementizer que to a lexicalized form that she classifies as a discourse marker. She illustrates that dizque has undergone subjectification, coming to be used as an epistemic device to express the speaker's point of view (namely doubt), and shows how this change is accompanied by a loss of syntax: dizque no longer functions as a verb + complementizer construction, but as a single lexeme. These changes are also evident in the data studied here, as will be discussed below.

Related forms have been observed in other Romance languages. Rosales Sequeiros (2001), for example, discusses Galician disque that he argues is an "attributive adverb", used to attribute the utterance it marks to someone other than the speaker and thereby distance the speaker from the proposition expressed. While a similar interpretation can be applied to dizque in Colombian Spanish, this accounts for just some uses of the marker. As Rosales Sequeiros's analysis is based on only a small number of mostly constructed examples it is not possible to know how much the other Colombian uses overlap with those of Galician disque.

Aikhenvald (2003, 2004) discusses the use of diz que in Portuguese spoken in the Vaupes region of Brazil. She describes it as a "reported evidential" used to mark reported information, all information that is not known firsthand by the speaker, and uncontrolled actions. She argues that it thus carries overtones of mirativity, and we will see that something similar is also evident in some uses of Colombian dizque. The indigenous languages spoken in this region all have evidential systems, and Aikhenvald sees the use of diz que and other such markers in Vaupes Portuguese as compensating for the lack of such a system in standard Portuguese. (3)

It has also been suggested that the use of dizque and extended use of the verb decir 'say' in Andean Spanish is related to contact with Quechua and Aymara, which have grammaticized evidential systems (cf. Bustamante 1991; Escobar 1993, 1997; Klee and Ocampo 1995; Laprade 1981). Klee and Ocampo (1995), in their study of Spanish-Quechua contact in Peru, and Laprade (1981), in his study of Spanish-Aymara contact in La Paz, Bolivia, argue that both the verb decir and the past tense system are recruited in these dialects of Spanish to express evidential meanings that exist in the indigenous languages, specifically, nonfirsthand information. Escobar (1993, 1997) and Bustamante (1991) comment on the frequent use of variants of the form decir to mark reported speech in Spanish in contact with Quechua in Peru and Ecuador, respectively. These analysts argue that the use of decir in these dialects is at least indirectly attributable to the contact situation, whereby Spanish forms are adapted to express concepts that are grammaticized in the indigenous languages of the region.

The extended use of dizque as a contact feature is extremely interesting and something that warrants further research. For the monolingual dialect of standard Colombian Spanish being studied here there is little reason to assume that the use of dizque is related to language contact with indigenous languages with evidential systems. Contact with indigenous languages is very limited in Colombia, and the standard dialect does not exhibit contact features beyond some lexical items for food, flora and fauna. Furthermore, as discussed above, the range of use dizque follows a pattern that is common crosslinguistically, and would appear to be related to widespread attitudes towards secondhand information.

4. Grammaticization of dizque

Dizque derives from a construction comprising the verb decir 'say' and the complementizer que. As noted by Company Company (forthcoming), dizque is a grammaticized form, which has changed its status from a verb + complementizer construction to an adverb or discourse marker used to encode evidentiality and epistemic stance. The following example in which both the source form, decir que, and the evidential/epistemic form, dizque, are used to mark reported speech allows for a comparison of the two.
(1) a. nos dijo a Beatriz y a mi que
 1PL.DAT say-3SG.PRET to Beatriz and to me COMP
 b. la acompanaramos al cementerio
 3SG. ACC accompany-1PL.SJV to the cemetery
 Campos de Paz,
 Campos de Paz
 c. porque dizque iba a enterrar a una persona.
 because dizque go-3SG.IMPF to bury-INF to one person (4)


'She said to Beatriz and me that we should go with her to the

'Fields of Peace' cemetery, because dizque she was going to bury a person.'

(Castro Caycedo 1994: 194-195)

Though dizque is not fully grammaticized, a comparison of the use of these two forms illustrates that it has undergone many of the changes typically observed in the grammaticization process (cf. Bybee et al. 1994; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Lehmann 1985; Traugott 1995). These are outlined below.

1. Syntactically, dizque has undergone what Company Company (forthcoming) refers to as "cancellation of syntax", whereby the construction has lost its ability to enter into syntactic relations:

a. Both components of dizque have undergone decategorialization: diz is an invariant form, stripped of all verbal morphology, while decir as used in line 1 carries person, number and tense marking; que no longer functions as a complementizer, as seen in the fact that the construction can occur with other complementizers, such as si 'if' (cf. example [8]), and even que (e.g., que dizque, dizque que, discussed further below), and that it introduces nonclausal elements.

b. It has undergone reanalysis, no longer functioning as a verb + complementizer construction, as the two elements comprising the form (diz and que) have been fused to function as a single unit (that is, as one grammatical and phonological word). Note that in line 1, the complementizer que occurs as part of the object complement, and it is separated from decir by the indirect object. In line 3, nothing can intervene between the two elements.

2. Phonologically, dizque has lost the final vowel in dice, which carries the person / number / tense marking in the canonical use. Dizque itself also often undergoes reduction, occurring as 'izque and, when preceded by que, qu'izque.

3. Semantically, it has generalized in meaning and has undergone pragmatic strengthening through inference.

a. The meaning 'say' has been lost to some degree as can be seen in the fact that where dizque is reporting speech, it often cooccurs with the verb decir 'say' (a kind of "lexical reinforcement", cf. Aikhenvald 2004), and in the fact that it has a broader range of use than decir as it is not limited to contexts of speech.

b. It has taken on a more subjective meaning (cf. Company Company forthcoming; Traugott 1995; Traugott and Dasher 2002), coming to be grounded in the speaker's subjective world, as a marker of epistemic stance encoding the speaker's attitude towards what is being said. This can be seen in (1), where decir simply reports a speech event, while dizque implies that this information is dubious, and would be best translated as 'supposedly'. This example will be discussed further below.

c. The notion of doubt inherent in some uses of dizque can be accounted for by the process of conventionalization of inference: aspects of meaning that are implied by the context in some uses have become part of the meaning of the marker in others. The range of use of dizque in the corpus includes examples where there is no notion of doubt, where the notion exists only as an inference, and examples where it has been conventionalized.

The following analysis will chart the uses of dizque in contemporary Colombian Spanish, and will illustrate in detail the relationship between them.

5. Functions of dizque

Four related functions of dizque have been identified in the corpus. I hypothesize that these functions represent the process of semantic development of dizque, as it gradually generalizes and becomes more subjective in meaning. Table 2 gives the frequencies with which these functions occur in the two data sets.

As can be seen, reported speech and hearsay together constitute the vast majority of the tokens: reported speech accounts for over half the tokens (56%) in the spoken data, and one third (33%) in the written data, while hearsay accounts for just over one third in the spoken data (37%) and close to one half in the written data (45%). "Reported speech", illustrated in (1) above, is the use most closely related to the source construction. Here, dizque introduces an utterance that is attributable to a specific person or group of people. It would be translated into English as something like 'he/she says that ...'. "Hearsay" refers to the use of dizque not to report a specific speech act, but to imply that there is an external source for the material presented, something like English 'it is said that' or 'they say that', with a nonspecific they. In these two uses, dizque most frequently occurs introducing a full clause.

What I have termed "labeling" accounts for 12% of the overall number of tokens, and is therefore a much more marginal use. Nevertheless, it is clearly distinct from the "reported speech" and "hearsay" functions. Firstly, it occurs in a different construction, introducing nominal elements (e.g., la dizque ley 'the dizque law'), and secondly, it makes no reference to a source for this material, but simply indicates that this term is not attributable to the speaker. Thus, the notion of doubt has been conventionalized. This use corresponds in part to English 'so-called'. (Note the use of the speech-act verb call here.)

The last function identified is "dubitative" dizque. Here, dizque occurs with first-person subjects, and this gives rise to a variety of pragmatic effects, similar to those described by Curnow (2002, 2003): it no longer attributes this material to anyone, but encodes the speaker's doubt (and further extensions of that) about the material. Thus, as with the "labeling" use the notion of doubt has been conventionalized, but here the notion of speech has been lost altogether. The results regarding this use are far from conclusive given the small number of tokens available: it does not occur at all in the spoken corpus, and occurs just four times in the written corpus. I believe that its occurrence is restricted to the written corpus partly because of the greater creativity of these experienced writers in recounting these narratives, and partly because the larger number of tokens in this data set presents a broader range of use. As we will see below, however, this use does occur in conversation. Furthermore, it will be apparent that dizque in this environment is indeed quite distinct from the other uses, and thus warrants independent consideration.

5.1. Reported speech

We will begin with examples where dizque functions to introduce reported speech, where it overtly marks an utterance as something that someone said or, as an extension of this, someone's thoughts or gestures. (5) Its role here is to help distinguish the utterance it marks from the surrounding material and to highlight it as reported speech. In the data this use is most common with third-person subjects, but there are some examples with first- and second-person subjects, where it introduces a quote of something the speaker or addressee said on a prior occasion. The reportative use is thus one that is compatible with all subjects, and the same meaning is maintained regardless of the person of the subject.

Reportative dizque occurs with both direct and indirect speech. With direct speech, it commonly occurs with quotes marked with other expressive material that help to animate and authenticate it, such as discourse markers (cf. Mayes 1990: 353; Travis 2005), and marked voice quality. These strategies are illustrated in (2) and (3). In (2) Santi uses dizque to introduce his quote of what people say about the referent, and in (3) Celia uses dizque to introduce a quote of what her granddaughter says to her toys and pets. Note that though the subject is not expressed in either example, (6) the speech is attributable to a specific person or group of people.

(2) A: Pero que te di=cen. [Que te dicen]?

S: [Dizque], huy. Dona Carmen quiere bastante a Jaime. (7)

Angela: 'But what do they say. What do they say?'

Santi: 'Dizque, wow. Carmen really loves Jaime.' (familia: 1653-1657) (8)

(3) C: Yo tengo unas munecas, y un perro ahi no?

(H) Y ella ahi, ... Empieza, <VOX Hola. Shht shht shht VOX>.

((11 Intonation Units of intervening conversation and laughter)) Dizque, <VOX Hola. Shht shht shht VOX>.

Celia: 'I have some dolls and a dog there, right? And she's there ... She starts, "Hello. Shht shht shht." ((11 Intonation Units of intervening conversation and laughter)) Dizque, "Hello. Shht shht shht".' (almuerzo: 1599-1619)

Dizque extends its use to introduce quoted thoughts and gestures. This represents a generalization of its semantics, though it should be noted that decir 'say' can also be used in this way, and this is a common extension for markers of reported speech. Something similar has been noted for the "quotative" use of English like (cf. Fleischman 1999; Romaine and Lange 1991).

In (4), dizque is used to introduce the quoted thoughts of the speaker. Here, Andrea is telling Patricia that she had introduced her friend Cesar Gerardo by the wrong name and felt terrible when he corrected her.

(4) A: Me hizo quedar mal.

P: Cesar Gerardo?

A: Me hizo quedar ahi, yo, dizque, Ay=.

Andrea: 'He made me look bad.'

Patricia: '[Is his name] Cesar Gerardo?'

Andrea: 'He left me there, I'm' dizque, oh.' (Colombo: 545-550)

In the following example, dizque occurs "quoting" a gesture. Although it is difficult to identify gesturing without video recordings, in this example it is clear because following dizque there is a pause and then a comment that the referent was gesturing asi 'like this'.

(5) A: Estaba ahorita=--.. asi como, hablando .. solo? hacia dizque, ... hacia gestos asi.

Angela: '... Just now he was like speaking to himself. He was dizque ... he was gesturing like this.' (restaurant: 900-904)

In the examples seen so far, dizque functions to highlight the material it introduces as a quote, helping to set it off from the surrounding discourse. It occurs with animated quotes, and draws attention to their authenticity, rather than implying any notion of doubt. However, dizque is also used with direct speech that is doubtful, or even false, as in the following example, where it introduces quotes from the speaker's own speech and from that of her husband's, which were lies, as is explicitly stated.

(6) A: Y yo, dizque,

M: @[@@]

A: [XXX], <VOX mi amor, A que horas fue que llegamos VOX>?

Y <@ no, dizque @>, <VOX No=, hace como dos o tres horas VOX>.

y hacia com--dia hora acababamos de llegar.

Angela: 'And I dizque,'

Maria: @@@

Angela: 'XXX, "Darling, what time did we get home?" And no, dizque, "No, two or three hours ago." And we'd only just got home about half an hour before.' (Calima2: 400-409)

Dizque is also widely used to introduce indirect speech. In such use dizque does not function as an attempt to animate or authenticate the quote (which, by definition, is expressed in a way that is clear that it is not reproducing the original speaker's words), but it still functions to highlight the material it marks as a quote. That is, it marks that material off from the surrounding discourse and indicates that it is something that someone said at another point in time. In this way it distances the speaker from the quote, and is therefore a particularly useful device to express the speaker's doubt about that material. When used with indirect speech, dizque implies that the material is false in some way.

In (7) the use of dizque implies that the addressee's actions are not in accordance with what he had said: prior to this excerpt, the addressee had asked his girlfriend for a kiss, and here she asks him to sit next to her and he is slow in responding. Her use of dizque suggests that what he had said to her may not be true, that is, that he did not really want a kiss when he said he did. This could be paraphrased as no dijiste que ... 'didn't you say that ...', demonstrating the closeness of this use to the canonical use of the verb decir 'say'.

(7)--Sentate aqui al lado, hombre.--Palpo donde yo deberia sentarme y en tono marrullero, pregunto --: ?No dizque querias un besito?

'"Sit here beside me, buddy." She patted where I was meant to sit and in a cajoling tone asked: "No dizque you wanted a kiss?"' (Franco 2001: 71)

In the following example, Angela states that on seeing her everyday with the recorder (recording conversations for this project), people tease her, calling her a journalist. This is false, because she is not a journalist.

Also note the use of decir 'say' here (underlined). The fact that dizque cooccurs with decir suggests that its meaning has generalized, such that it is reinforced where a speaker wishes to stress the reportative function.

(8) A: Ya me dicen--dizque, si soy periodista. ... Ahorita, me dijeron, Me dijeron, dizque, que periodista, oyo.

Angela: 'Now they say to me--dizque if I'm a journalist.... Just now they said to me, they said to me dizque that [I'm a] journalist, you know.' (comida: 47-55)

While decir 'say' indicates that Angela is repeating what someone said, dizque highlights the fact that the utterance presented belongs to the quoted speaker: it encodes something like "this is what was said", and implies "I wouldn't say such a thing because it isn't true". Thus, there are overtones of doubt evident here.

In the following example (presented above as example [1]) we can again see a contrast between decir and dizque. Decir is used to introduce what a "witch" told Beatriz and the narrator (to go with her to the cemetery), but dizque is used to introduce what she claimed was her reason for going there, which, as the following material shows, the writer did not believe.

(9) ... una amiga que era mas bruja que yo, nos dijo a Beatriz y a mi que la acompanaramos al cementerio Campos de Paz, porque dizque iba a enterrar a una persona. [??]Enterrar a un vivo? A mi me dio risa

'... a friend who was even more of a witch than me told Beatriz and me to go with her to the Fields of Peace cemetery, because dizque she was going to bury a person. Bury a live person? It made me laugh ...'

(Castro Caycedo 1994: 194-195)

These examples illustrate how dizque can function to introduce a quote, and can also imply that the quote contains false information. The lexical reinforcement provided by decir is further evidence that dizque is not employed merely to mark the quote. As well as occurring with decir, dizque can also occur with "quotative que", where que is used on its own to introduce speech, implying an elided speech act verb (cf. Butt and Benjamin 2000: 448). The following example, from the literature, presents three tokens of que dizque. Again, dizque is introducing indirect speech, and its role is to highlight the material as belonging to someone else and in so doing, distance the speaker from it. In this case the narrator wishes to distance himself because of the perceived absurdity of what is being said. Prior to this excerpt, a seven-year-old homeless boy had claimed he had been hit by an unarmed policeman. Three members of the crowd sprung to the child's defense, and here the writer reports what they said.

(10) Y los tres defensores enfurecidos, abogando por el minusculo delincuente y cacariando, amparados desde la valentia cobarde de la turbamulta, que dizque estaban dispuestos que dizque a hacerse matar, que dizque si fuera necesario, del que no tenia armas.

'And the three furious defenders, were pleading for the tiny delinquent, and, protected by the cowardly bravery of the crowd, clucking that dizque they were prepared to that dizque have themselves killed that dizque if it was necessary, by the one who was unarmed.' (Vallejo 1994: 54-55

These three tokens are the only examples of dizque in conjunction with "quotative que" in the written corpus. In the conversational corpus there are a total of eight tokens of such use, four of que dizque (two of which are reduced to qu'izque), three of dizque que (one of which was seen in [8]), and one of que dizque que, given below. Here, Celia is teasing the addressee about the fact that he is still eating when he had declared shortly before that he was full, implying that this cannot have been true.

(11) C: Ay, que dizque .. que <@ estaba lleno @>, .. Y esta comiendo galletas.

Celia: 'Oh, that dizque that you were full, and you're eating cookies.' (almuerzo: 2462-2464)

To summarize what we have seen for reported speech, the role of dizque in this function is to highlight the material it marks as a quote and distinguish'it from the surrounding discourse. It encodes something like "someone said this". (9) This may be particularly useful when the speaker wishes to imply that the quoted material is false: by highlighting the material as a quote the speaker distances him/herself from it and denies responsibility for it. However, it is important to note that it is not dizque itself that marks that information as false, as can be seen in the fact that it is also used to present quotes as very real. Rather, this is a pragmatic effect of the distancing implied in the use of dizque, which allows an interpretation of falsity where this is compatible with the surrounding context.

5.2. Hearsay

In marking reported speech, dizque ties an utterance to a specifiable source: it indicates that this is what a specific person (or group of people) said, and can occur with first-, second- and third-person (expressed and unexpressed) subjects. In marking hearsay, dizque never occurs with an expressed subject, and is understood to refer to an unspecified third party. It encodes something like "people say this". We will see below that, as with dizque marking reported speech, it can mark material that the speaker believes to be true as well as material that is doubted. Also like its use marking reported speech, in encoding hearsay dizque can occur with the lexical reinforcement of both decir 'say' and "quotative que" (underlined in the examples), once again evidence of generalization of meaning.

We will first consider examples where dizque presents information as something that is not known firsthand by the speaker but as something that he/she has heard from others, and where there is no implication of doubt.

(12) A: ... Por ejemplo, el a---aqui el alcaide, Todo lo que ha hecho, Y=--y ahorita, dizque ya lo estan investigando.

Angela: 'For example, the mayor here, all that he's done, and now, dizque he's under investigation.' (almuerzo: 913-919)

Here, dizque could be translated into English as 'apparently', and it indicates that this is information that the speaker has received secondhand. There is nothing to suggest that the speaker doubts the veracity of this information.

In the following example it is clear that the speaker is wholly committed to what she is saying, as can be seen in the fact that she rejects her interlocutor's partial correction of the information she had presented.

(13) R: Y eso, dizque es peligroso no? .. que atracan y todo ... No?

D: De noche, parece que si.

R: .. No, y que dizque hasta de dia.

Rosario: 'And it, dizque is dangerous, isn't it. They attack and everything. Don't they?'

David: 'At night it seems that they do.'

Rosario: 'No, and that dizque even during the day.'

(Tumaco: 1558-1565)

Note the use of "quotative que" here, once again evidence that dizque is generalizing to a marker of secondhand information, or indirect evidence, with que functioning to specify that the source of information is hearsay.

Given the nature of dizque marking hearsay, it rarely occurs with firstperson events, as one does not usually learn about one's own actions indirectly. However, as has been noted for reported evidentials in grammaticized evidential systems, the hearsay use is possible with first person in situations where the speaker was not in a full state of consciousness when the event occurred (Curnow 2003). The following is one such example. Here, the narrator is recounting the story of when he was found practically unconscious on the streets of New York. He does not remember the story but others have told him what happened, and he uses dizque to encode this.

(14) Ella se agacho hasta mi altura de pordiosero sentado, me cogio la mano sucia y helada, pero yo me sacudi con mas miedo; dizque le pregunte: ?la policia? ...

'She bent down to my level as a seated beggar, took my dirty, freezing hand, but I pulled away even more scared; dizque I asked her, "The police?" ...' (Franco 2001: 54)

We saw in example (13) that hearsay dizque can occur with the lexical reinforcement of "quotative que". In the following example it occurs with reinforcement of the verb decir 'say'.

(15) S: Si, son petas [rojas].

A: [Yo] no se unas peras que--.. vimos alla en--.. En el Superley.

C: Hm=.

S: Unas peras dizque importadas, eso dicen.

Santi: 'Yes, they're red pears.'

Angela: 'I don't know, some pears that--we saw in--in Superley [supermarket].'

Celia: 'Hm.'

Santi: 'Dizque imported pears, that's what they say.' (almuerzo: 1429-1437)

This lexical reinforcement suggests that while dizque is closely associated with hearsay, it can also function as a more general marker of indirect evidence. In so doing, dizque allows the speaker to distance him/ herself from the material presented and therefore to deny responsibility for it. It can be used when the speaker does not wish to question the information presented, but it is also readily used in contexts where the speaker does wish to question that information. In example (16), dizque implies that the information is questionable, and can be contrasted here with decir 'say', which does not.

(16) En brujeria dicen que todas esas cosas cambian sus propiedades por los rezos y las alumbradas que se les hacen y dizque se convierten en sustancias magicas, [??]me entiendes?

'In witchcraft they say that all these things change their properties through the devotions and illuminations that are done to them and dizque they become magic substances, you see?' (Castro Caycedo 1994: 118)

While dicen que 'they say that' presents objectively what is put forward by theories of witchcraft ("it is said that things change their properties"), dizque implies that the material it introduces is a belief that is more open to question ("supposedly they take on magic properties"). It does not explicitly state that the speaker doubts this information but it implies that the information may be doubtful.

In the following, the notion of doubt is much more apparent.

(17) A ver, ustedes que dizque son tan buenos catolicos, [??]me sabran decir en que iglesia de Medellin esta San Pedro Claver?

'Let's see, you who dizque are such good Catholics, would you be able to tell me which church in Medellin San Pedro Claver is in?' (Vallejo 1994: 53)

Dizque here suggests that despite the Colombians supposedly being good Catholics they are not familiar with the churches of the cities they live in, the implication being that they do not go to church as much as good Catholics should and therefore that perhaps they are not such good Catholics after all.

We can see from these examples that in marking hearsay dizque indicates that the speaker is not presenting firsthand information, but information that he/she learnt from an outside source. This source is not specified, but it is understood to be something that has been presented in the media, information put forward by authorities, or beliefs that are held in the society. This allows the speaker to deny authorship of the information presented, and thereby to deny responsibility for it as well. This renders dizque a useful device to imply speaker doubt without explicitly encoding it as part of its meaning.

5.3. Labeling

In what I have termed "labeling" dizque does not introduce a full clause (as is its most common use for reported speech and hearsay), but a noun phrase or a prepositional phrase. It has therefore moved further from the canonical sense of decir que, which does not occur in this environment. Dizque in this use also differs from that of marking reported speech and hearsay in that it does not directly attribute the label to a (specific or nonspecific) third party, but simply indicates that it is not attributable to the speaker. Thus, dizque is not used with labels that the speaker is prepared to vouch for, and the notion of doubt has been conventionalized, in some cases extending to falsity. Like dizque marking hearsay, "labeling" dizque occurs with unexpressed third-person subjects. It encodes something like "other people say this; I don't want to say: I know this", and is similar to English "so-called".

One use of "labeling" dizque is to mark a name that the speaker finds somehow unusual. Below is one example of this, where the unusual name "sophrologist" is introduced with dizque.

(18) ... en medio de la confusion y de la angustia, cai en manos de una mujer medica bioenergetica que a la vez era dizque sofrologa.

'... in the confusion and distress I fell into the hands of a female bio-energy doctor who was also a dizque sophrologist.' (Castro Caycedo 1994: 236)

Dizque serves here to attribute the information it introduces to someone other than the speaker, marking it as what others say not because the speaker wishes to question the validity of the name, but because it is found to be unusual, and is not a name the speaker would have used, for example, because he/she has just learnt it.

In the conversational data dizque occurs introducing names the speakers is unsure of. There are two such examples, both of which are given below. Note that in both cases, the speakers explicitly state that they are unsure of the name. Example (19) is about the name of a computer virus, and example (20) is about the name of a sauce for ice cream that the speaker was served in a cafe.

(19) N: tengo uno, tengo dizque el capa, o algo asi,

Nury: 'I've got one, I've got dizque the capa, or something like that.'

(estudios: 102-104)

(20) F: .. Ahi lo coloca--ya dizque show it.... show it.

A: Show it?

F: Show--No--showy. Showy,

A: [showy]?

F: [con] dabelyu wai. ((WY)) Showy= -- ... No me acuerdo como se llama esa.

Fabio: 'There they put on it dizque show it.... Show it.'

Angela: 'Show it?'

Fabio: 'Show--No. Showy. Showy,'

Angeta: 'Showy?'

Fabio: 'With W Y. Showy--... I don't remember what they call that.'

(comida: 487-502)

The remaining cases of "labeling dizque" occur with labels that are perceived to be inapt or even false. Thus, we have an extension from overtly marking the label as one that is used by others and which may be new to the speaker, to marking it as one the speaker is unsure of, to marking it as one the speaker believes does not accurately capture the nature of the referent. In (21), dizque introduces "an elixir for eternal youth", which is then described as having failed to save the narrator from a single wrinkle. In (22), "the President's opposition" (touring with the President) is introduced with dizque, following which the writer states that this made her realize the farcical nature of politics, that is, that the so-called "opposition" is not really in opposition.

(21) ... me daba unas aguas para llevar a la casa, en unos frascos grandes y sucios que, segun el, debia beber de lunes a sabado, unas, y el domingo, otras. Dizque un elixir para la eterna juventud ... [??]Nunca me quito ni una puta arruga!

'... he would give me some liquids to take home, in large and dirty jars that, according to him, I should take some from Monday to Saturday, and others on Sunday. Dizque an elixir for eternal youth.... It never got rid of one darn wrinkle!' (Castro Caycedo 1994: 60)

(22) Imaginese, el hombre del Palacio tambien en este paseo con los que eran, dizque opositores del Presidente. Eso me hizo pensar que esta politica es una farsa y que los unicos pendejos aqui somos los que les comemos cuento a ellos.

'Just imagine, the man from the parliament on that tour with those who were dizque the President's opposition. That made me think that politics is a farce and that the only idiots here were us who believe the politicians.' (Castro Caycedo 1994: 148)

In the following example, dizque introduces a label that the referent falsely applied to himself. The speaker is describing how one of the people she had recorded the previous day had pretended he was a drug dealer, something that is untrue.

(23) A: ... Se presento como, dizque narcotraficante, Yo me llamo no se que =, narcotrafica=nte,

Angela: '... He introduced himself as dizque a drug dealer. I'm called so-and-so, drug dealer,' (Colombo: 469-472)

In the following example, dizque occurs twice introducing prepositional phrases, but the context illustrates that it is the labels presented that are being brought into question. Dizque suggests that comerciar 'to do business' and de vuelta 'in change' are falsely applied labels used by the referent in the scam outlined here.

(24) ... se abrio dizque a comerciar. Comerciar era llegar a los almacenes, pedir, no pagar, y exigir dinero de vuelta.... les sacaban dinero dizque de vuelta.

'... she began dizque to do business. Do business was to go into the shops, make an order, not pay, and demand change.... they would get money out of them dizque in change.' (Castro Caycedo 1994: 100-101)

The use of dizque marking a label distances the speaker from that label and overtly marks it as a label the speaker does not wholly accept. This may be because of the nature of labels themselves: things are given labels by people, and therefore all labels have essentially been learnt through what others say. Thus, if the speaker chooses to explicitly state that the label has been learnt via hearsay then he/she also states at the same time that this is not a label that he/she would choose to use (either because it is new, unusual, inapt, or even false). As the notion of doubt is always evident in the use of dizque marking labels, it can no longer be classified as a pragmatic effect, but has been conventionalized to become inherent to the semantics of the marker.

5.4. Dubitative

We have seen above a set of uses of dizque ranging from those that objectively report what others say to those that imply speaker doubt about that information to those in which the notion of doubt has been conventionalized. What all these uses have in common is a relationship with speech: this information is something someone said. However, there is also a small number of tokens in the corpus in which dizque has lost the notion of 'say' altogether, and where it does not indicate that the material it marks was said by someone, but rather encodes a variety of notions associated with false beliefs, unachievable goals, and uncontrollability. For want of a better term, I have used "dubitative" as a general term to cover these uses and to highlight the fact that this is an extension of the notion of "doubt" that we have found as a secondary meaning above.

The key feature of this function is that dizque occurs with first-person subjects. Thus, here we see first-person effects, of the kind described by Curnow (2003), namely the taking on of different meanings of indirect evidentials when they refer to first-person events. Some of the uses that are noted by Curnow include marking actions carried out unintentionally or inadvertently, intended actions giving rise to unintentional consequences and nonvolitionality. Lazard (1999: 99) also reports on the (rare) use of indirect evidentials with the first person to encode "unconscious or unintentional action". All such uses are found in the corpus, as will be seen below.

A further use, not described in the literature, is one of marking falsity. This is the case in the following example, where the actions and consequences are intentional, controlled and volitional, but the activity referred to is pretend.

(25) A media cuadra de la casa habia una tienda. La atendian unos viejitos de pelito blanco. Yo dizque les compraba pan y dulce y les pagaba con esas laticas. Creia que ellos pensaban que eran monedas. Pero me daban el pan y el dulce para ayudarme.

'Half a block from the house there was a shop. It was run by some oldies with white hair. I dizque would buy bread and candy from them and I would pay with those little tin plates. I believed they thought that they were coins. But they gave me the bread and candy to help me.' (Lara Salive 1994: 29)

This use does not fit any of the functions described above because there is no implication that the narrator, or anyone else, said that she would buy bread and candy. Dizque is clearly not marking speech here. Rather, it indicates that she did not really "buy" bread and candy, since she was using false money, but she pretended to do this, and the owners of the shop played along with her game.

There are two tokens of dizque marking unintentional consequences. In both, dizque marks a purposive clause introduced with a 'to'. Dizque does not indicate that this is what was said was the intention, but rather casts doubt on that intention and forewarns that the action referred to would have unintended consequences. In (26), dizque introduces what the intention of the narrator was in going to a pastry shop.

(26) Fuimos a comprar el refrigerador para la mama de Wilmar, y me dio por pasar de regreso por el Versalles dizque a comprar pasteles.

'We went to buy the refrigerator for Wilmar's mother, and on the way back I felt like going by Versalles [name of pastry shop] dizque to buy some pastries.' (Vallejo 1994: 111)

The reason for the use of dizque can be seen in the context following this excerpt: on going to the pastry shop, the narrator bumped into a friend of his who informed him of the real identity of his companion, Wilmar, and this information had a major effect on the writer's actions following this and in the rest of the book. Thus, dizque does not indicate that the narrator said he wanted to buy pastries but that the consequence of going to the pastry shop was to be something other than what was intended.

In (27) dizque forewarns of unrealized intentions. This example refers to some drug dealers who had had a brush with the police, and were warned to stay away from the capital as they may be caught. They ignored this and went straight back to the capital, and dizque here introduces the aim behind their actions, namely, to help their workers, and suggests that the end result was to be something different.

(27) ... lo primero que nos dice es: "No se vayan para el Distrito Federal, por favor". Pero fue como si nos hubieran dicho, "[??]Vayanse para el D.F.!" porque nos volvemos como burros en busca de nuestra gente y dizque a tratar de arreglarle la situacion a los trabajadores.

'... the first thing he says to us is "Don't got to the capital, please." But it was as though we had been told "Go to the capital" because we went straight back there like donkeys looking for our people and dizque to try to fix up the workers' situation.' (Castro Caycedo 1994: 249)

Again, events following this excerpt in the book account for the use of dizque here: their returning to the capital led to the workers also being caught by the police. As in (26), dizque does not mean that they said that this was their intention, but rather it indicates a discrepancy between their intentions and the outcome.

Examples (26) and (27) illustrate the use of dizque to mark what could be referred to as unintended consequences. In the following example it marks nonvolitionality and uncontrollability. The narrator here has been given a job cleaning bathrooms, much to his disgust. Having listed a number of ways in which he is entirely unsuitable for the job because he is overly sensitive to cleanliness (the last of which is reproduced here), he expresses his disbelief at finding himself in this situation.

(28) ... yo, que incluso algunas veces limpie la taza que otro habia chapoteado para que quien usara el bano despues de mi no fuera a pensar que el descarado habia sido yo; yo, por Dios, dizque a limpiar banos.

'... me, who even sometimes wiped the toilet bowl that someone else had splattered so that whoever used the bathroom after me wouldn't think that the shameless one had been me; I, for God's sake, dizque to clean bathrooms.' (Franco 2001: 71)

Dizque does not indicate here that this is what someone said. Rather, it indicates that the narrator has to do something that he would not have chosen to do and over which he has no control. It also expresses an element of surprise, as though he has all of a sudden found himself in this terrible situation. In this sense dizque carries mirative overtones, similar to those discussed in Aikhenvald (2003, 2004) for diz que in Vaupes Portuguese.

These four examples represent the total number of such tokens in the written corpus, and as noted above this use is not found in the conversational data. Such use is however heard in conversation, as the following example illustrates. This comes from something I overheard from a native speaker in the course of writing this article.

(29) Me puse a hacer dizque el almuerzo. 'I started to make dizque lunch.'

Here, the speaker is not reporting what she said, and nor is she questioning whether it was lunch that she was making. Rather, she is stating that she should have been studying, but instead she was wasting time making lunch. As in (28), there is an implication of uncontrollability and surprise, as though she found herself doing something that she had not consciously chosen to do.

In these examples, it is not possible to assign the material introduced by dizque to the narrator or to anyone else. It has lost the meaning of decir 'say' altogether here, and what exists as an implication, or as a secondary meaning, in the other uses we have seen has been conventionalized, with dizque on its own encoding extended notions of doubt in terms of falsity, unintended consequences and uncontrollability, in some cases with mirative overtones. Although the small number of tokens is far from conclusive, these examples are at the very least suggestive that dizque may follow the path of other reported evidentials and take on meanings further removed from that of speech.

6. Summary and conclusions

In the analysis presented above, I have proposed four major functions of dizque, which represent movement away from the canonical use of introducing speech, an evidential function, to more subjective uses of marking doubt, an epistemic function. We have seen this represents a generalization of the semantics of dizque, as it gradually loses the notion of speech, comes to occur with a broader range of subjects (specific and nonspecific), and in a broader range of contexts (introducing not just clausal but also nominal and verbal elements). Table 3 summarizes the hypothesized path of development.

In marking reported speech, dizque presents a prior speech act that is attributable to a specific source ("someone said this"). That source can be first, second or third person. The notion of doubt is available as a pragmatic inference depending on the context of use.

In marking hearsay, dizque introduces information that does not represent a specific speech act (nobody needs to have said this), but there is an implied source, which may be the media, authorities, a general belief and so on ("people say this"). Consistent with this, in this use dizque only occurs with third-person nonspecific subjects. As with its role in introducing reported speech, an element of doubt can be implied according to the context.

When marking a label there is no specific speech act dizque refers back to, and furthermore there is no source for this information, implied or otherwise. In accordance with this, dizque occurs with nonspecific third-person subjects only. The role of dizque here is not to attribute this label to someone else, bur to avoid attribution of the label to the speaker; that is, the speaker indicates that he/she does not vouch for the label ("other people say this; I don't want to say: I know this"). In this use the notion of doubt is inherent in the meaning of the marker.

Finally, in the "dubitative" use, the notion of speech has been lost altogether: dizque occurs with first-person subjects, an environment in which indirect evidentials regularly demonstrate a range of pragmatic effects related to the incongruence of an indirect evidential with an act that the speaker carried out. As is found in grammaticized evidential systems, here we see dizque encoding such notions as falsity, unintended consequences, nonvolitionality and uncontrollability, in some contexts with overtones of mirativity.

Thus, dizque has extended its use from a verbal construction used to introduce a speech act to a strategy for marking evidentiality to one of marking epistemic stance. In so doing, it has undergone both generalization and subjectification. This path of development is identical to one commonly found in grammaticized evidentiality systems. This is evidence of a widespread (though as noted not universal) attitude towards reported speech, or secondhand information in general, which is perceived to be not wholly reliable and readily open to doubt. It also demonstrates that both lexicon and grammar form one coherent system and are subject to the same patterns of pragmatically induced semantic change.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2003). Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Studies in Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), 1-31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

--(2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bustamante, Isabel (1991). El presente perfecto o preterito perfecto compuesto en el espanol quiteno. Lexis 15(2), 195-231.

Butt, John and Benjamin, Carmen (2000). A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Bybee, Joan; Perkins, Revere; and Pagliuca, William (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Castro Caycedo, German (1994). La bruja: Coca, politica y demonio. Bogota: Planeta.

Chafe, Wallace (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), 261-272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Chafe, Wallace and Nichols, Johanna (eds.) (1986). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Collins Spanish Concise Dictionary (1993). Barcelona: Harper Collins.

Company Company, Concepcion (forthcoming). Subjectification of verbs into discourse markers: semantic-pragrnatic change only? In Modalization and Pragmaticalization, Nicole Delbecque and Bert Cornillie (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Curnow, Timothy Jowan (2002). Types of interaction between evidentials and first person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics 44(2), 178-196.

--(2003). Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27(1), 39-59.

de Haan, Ferdinand (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18(1), 83-102.

Donabedian, Anaid (2001). Towards a semasiological account of evidentials: an enunciative approach of -er in Modern Western Armenian. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 421-442.

DuBois, John W.; Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan; Paolino, Danae; and Cumming, Susanna (eds.) (1992). Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 4. Santa Barbata: UCSB Linguistics Department.

Escobar, Anna Maria (1993). Epistemic modality in Spanish in contact with Quechua in Peru. In Proceedings of the Mid-America Conference on Linguistics, Evan Smith and Flore Zephir (eds.), 137-152. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri.

--(1997). From time to modality in Spanish in contact with Quechua. Hispanic Linguistics 9(1), 64-99.

Fleischman, Suzanne (1999). Pragmatic markers in comparative and historical perspective: theoretical implications of a case study. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, BC.

Franco, Jorge (2001). Paraiso Travel. Bogota: Editorial Planeta.

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kany, C. E. (1944). Impersonal dizque and its variants in American Spanish. Hispanic Review 12, 168-177.

Klee, Carol A. and Ocampo, Alicia M. (1995). The expression of past reference in Spanish narratives of Spanish-Quechua bilingual speakers. In Spanish in Four Continents: Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism, Carmen Silva Corvalan (ed.), 52-70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Laprade, R. A. (1981). Some cases of Aymara influence on La Paz Spanish. In The Aymara Language in its Social and Cultural Context: A Collection of Essays on Aspects of Aymara Language and Culture, M. J. Hardman (ed.), 207-227. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Lara Salive, Patricia (1994). Las mujeres en la guerra. Bogota: Planeta.

Lazard, Gilbert (1999). Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3, 91-109.

--(2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3), 359367.

Lehmann, Christian (1985). Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 203-218.

MacDonald, Lorna (1990). Evidentiality in Tauya. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 21, 31-46.

Mayes, Patricia (1990). Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language 14(2), 325-363.

Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: a case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66(3), 227-279.

Rosales Sequeiros, Xose (2001). Historical evolution of attributive adverbs in Galician. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds.), 31-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.--and Dasher, Richard (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Travis, Catherine E. (2005). Discourse Markers in Colombian Spanish: A Study in Polysemy. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vallejo, Fernando (1994). La virgen de los sicarios. Bogota: Alfaguara.

VOX (1971). Diccionario general ilustrado de la lengua espanola. Barcelona: Bibliograf. Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Notes

* I would like to thank Alexandra Aikhenvald, Joan Bybee, Timothy Curnow and one anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on this article. I would also like to thank Maria Elena Rendon, Marianne Dieck and Rocio Amezquita for help with the data collection and transcription. Correspondence address: Department of Linguistics/ Spanish and Portuguese, University of New Mexico, MSC03 2130, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1196, USA. E-mail: cetravis@unm.edu.

(1.) For further details of the spoken corpus, see Travis (2005).

(2.) This book was made into a film in Colombia, and was exported with English subtitles. The translation given here is the English title of the film.

(3.) Diz que as used in Vaupes Portuguese can occur utterance finally, and thus would appear to have developed further than Colombian Spanish dizque, which cannot. This is a feature Spanish dizque retains from the source construction, as que as a complementizer occurs as part of the complement clause that follows and therefore must occur with that material. It is possible that dizque is further developed in other Spanish dialects: according to Company Company (forthcoming), dizque does occur utterance finally in Mexican Spanish.

(4.) Abbreviations used are as follows:
DAT dative 1 1 st person
ACC accusative 3 3rd person
PRET preterit SG singular
IMPF imperfect PL plural
INF infinitive
SJV subjunctive
COMP complementizer


(5.) I will use "reported speech" as a general term to cover all such uses.

(6.) Spanish is a so-called "pro-drop" language; that is, it allows both expressed (explicit) and unexpressed (implicit) subjects.

(7.) All names given are pseudonyms. Transcription conventions are as follows:
. final intonation contour .. short pause (about
 0.5 secs)
, continuing intonation contour ... medium pause
 (>0.7 secs)
? appeal intonation contour X one syllable of
 unclear speech
-- truncated intonation contour (( )) researcher's comment
- truncated word @ one syllable of
 laughter
= lengthened syllable <@ @> speech while laughing
[ ] overlapped speech <VOX VOX> speech uttered with
 marked
(H) in breath voice quality


(8.) All spoken examples (with the exception of [27], which is an overheard example) come from the corpus of conversational Colombian Spanish described in Travis (2005). They are referenced according to the name of the transcript from which the example is drawn and the line numbers of the example in that transcript.

(9.) The paraphrases of the meaning of dizque given in this article are based on a set definitions of evidentials in different languages proposed by Wierzbicka (1996) constructed within the Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach. It should be noted that the paraphrases given here are not intended as full definitions but as rough approximations of the meanings expressed.

CATHERINE E. TRAVIS

University of New Mexico

Received 20 January 2004 Revised version received 25 May 2004
Table 1. Written corpus

Author Year Title No. of Words Tokens/
 tokens 1000
 words

Castro Caycedo, 1994 La bruja: Coca, 40 95,000 0.42
German politica y
 demonio
 'The witch:
 Coke, politics
 and demonism'
Franco, Jorge 2001 Paraiso Travel 9 80,000 0.11
 'Paradise
 travel'
Lara Salive, 2000 Las mujeres 10 100,000 0.10
Patricia en la guerra
 'Women at war'
Vallejo, Fernando 1994 La virgen de 14 35,000 0.40
 los sicarios
 'Our lady of
 the
 assassins' (2)
Total 73 310,000 Ave.:
 0.25

Table 2. Frequencies of functions of dizque

 Spoken corpus Written corpus

 No. of tokens % No. of tokens %

Reported speech 30 56 24 33
Hearsay 20 37 33 45
Labeling 4 7 12 16
Dubitative 0 0 4 6
Total 54 100 73 100

 Total

 No. of tokens %

Reported speech 54 43
Hearsay 53 42
Labeling 16 12
Dubitative 4 3
Total 127 100

Table 3. Development of dizque

reported speech > hearsay > labeling >

specific speech no specific speech no specific speech
act; specific act; implied source act; no source
source

all subjects third-person nonspecific subjects

 speech (+doubt) speech + doubt

reported speech > dubitative

specific speech no speech act
act; specific
source

all subjects 1st person subjects

 doubt + extensions
COPYRIGHT 2006 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Travis, Catherine E.
Publication:Linguistics: an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences
Geographic Code:3COLO
Date:Nov 1, 2006
Words:11103
Previous Article:Cognitive factors in the perception of Spanish stress placement: implications for a model of speech perception *.
Next Article:Developing register differentiation: the Latinate-Germanic divide in English *.
Topics:


Related Articles
Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-)auxiliaries; a cognitive-functional approach.
Evidentiality in Estonian and some other languages. Introductory remarks[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
Evidentiality in South Estonian/[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters