Restar con minuendo menor de 39 (temporalización al siguiente curso).

In Anglophone research the development of modal meanings and dis- course functions has been explained with reference to the grammaticali- zation framework (e.g. Traugott 1995b, 2006, 2014; Traugott and Dasher 2002; Brinton 2008). Grammaticalization is “the process whereby lexi- cal items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions” (Hopper and Traugott 1993: xv). A classic example of grammaticalization is the development of modal auxiliaries from lexical verbs. The parameters used to identify cases of grammaticali- zation have been described differently by different authors. Those used by Traugott (e.g. 1995b) will be referred to later in this section. For a com- parison of the criteria used by Lehmann (1982 [1995]), Traugott (1995b), and Tabor and Traugott (1998), see Lewis (2011). Boye and Harder (2013) identify three paths of grammaticalization which provide a brief intro- duction to the processes it involves: (1) a development of a lexical mor- pheme into a grammatical morpheme; (2) a development of a lexical item into a bound morpheme; (3) a development of new pragmatic properties by a lexical item. The last path is most closely connected with the devel- opment of modal adverbs. The change is typically presented as unidirec- tional, though some exceptions to unidirectionality have also been noted, e.g. the development of maybe from the verbs may and be. Such cases have been referred to as lexicalization, i.e. the development of a grammatical item into a lexical one (Ramat and Ricca 1998: 297; Traugott 2006: 122).

The developmental path of epistemic adverbs has been studied by Traugott, on the basis of the diachronic changes identified for items such as indeed, in fact, actually (Traugott 1995b), and surely and no doubt (Traugott 2014). In Traugott’s (1995b: 1) view, the process involves the fol- lowing stages: adverbial > sentence adverbial > discourse particle. When adverbials develop epistemic senses they become partly procedural, i.e. “they are abstract, schematic expressions that cue how the Speaker con- ceptualizes relationships within the clause and between clauses, and how the Addressee is to interpret the clause” (Traugott 2014: 19). The changes which can be observed in the process include those which are attested in

the development of grammatical markers, i.e. “decategorialization, pho- nological reduction, and generalization” as well as pragmatic strengthen- ing and subjectification, i.e. the characteristics which, as Traugott argues, “should be considered salient to grammaticalization” (Traugott 1995b: 1). Traugott (2014: 20) writes that “from a functional perspective on gram- maticalization, epistemic linkers are highly procedural grammatical mark- ers”. When epistemic adverbs become discourse particles they become more procedural, while at the same time retaining some modal properties (Traugott 2014: 19). Cornillie and Pietrandrea (2012: 2112) discuss epis- temic and post-epistemic meanings of modal adverbs. In post-epistemic uses they function as discourse markers, which link elements of discourse and influence its interpretation.

It has been suggested that grammaticalization theory does not provide a sufficient framework to explain the development of discourse markers and modal particles. Erman and Kotsinas (1993), Aijmer (1997), and Beeching (2012) argue that the emergence of discourse markers should be discussed within the framework of pragmaticalization. Erman and Kotsi- nas (1993) explain that the two processes differ with respect to the func- tions of the items which they shape: grammaticalization produces gram- matical markers, while pragmaticalization produces discourse markers. In a similar vein, Dostie (2004: 27) notes that pragmaticalization gives rise to conversational roles, not grammatical ones. Beeching (2012: 15) presents several arguments against considering grammaticalization to be responsible for the emergence of discourse markers: “they are not phone- tically reduced or fused, they do not undergo a categorial change and they are syntactically unconstrained, relatively speaking”. Traugott and Dasher (2002: 158-159) argue, however, that discourse markers are “indubitably ‘part of the grammar’ or part of the structure of the sentence (i.e. they are not extra-grammatical)” even though they “carry scope over more than the sentence” and are primarily pragmatic in meaning and function, and therefore the grammaticalization framework is sufficient to explain their development. In Traugott’s (2014) view the suggestions that pragmatic (or discourse) markers develop as a result of pragmaticalization rather than grammaticalization results from a different understanding of the nature of grammaticalization. She writes:

Those who argue that the development of discourse markers is a case of grammaticalization assume that grammaticalization is primarily a function- al change, i.e. about meaning and about the role of grammatical markers. Those who argue that the development of discourse markers is a case of pragmaticalization, not grammaticalization, assume that grammaticaliza- tion is a formal change, in which reduction and increase in dependency are defining characteristics. (Traugott 2014: 19)

Lewis (2011: 440) summarizes her study of the development of dis- course functions by instead and rather with the observation that “[t]he changes observed in these markers do not support a ‘pragmaticalization’ process distinct from grammaticalization.” Traugott (2014: 20) offers a third way of viewing the relation between grammaticalization and prag- maticalization. She writes that while pragmaticalization is not a separate process, it may be treated as “a subclass of grammaticalization the mem- bers of which have primarily pragmatic meaning” (Traugott 2014: 20; see also Prévost 2011). A similar view has been proposed by Diewald (2006, 2011), who also considers pragmaticalization to be a type of grammati- calization, and suggests that the pragmatic functions of discourse markers can in fact be considered to be their grammatical functions.

The development of modal adverbs has also been discussed in the context of (inter)subjectification. The relation between grammaticaliza- tion and (inter)subjectification is a matter of some dispute (see Narrog 2015 for a summary). Traugott (2010: 38) observes that while “there is a strong correlation between grammaticalization and subjectification”, the correlation between grammaticalization and intersubjectification is less strong. As noted by Narrog (2015: 151), (inter)subjectification is not only found in the area of grammar, but also in the lexicon. Thus, (inter)subjec- tification does not have to entail grammaticalization. Traugott and Dasher (2002: 225) summarize the changes involved in the process of (inter)sub- jectification using the following cline: “non-/less subjective > subjective > intersubjective” (cf. also Traugott 2010: 35). Subjectification, as defined by Traugott (2014: 9), “is a process of change giving rise to expressions of the Speaker’s beliefs, and stance toward what is said”, while intersub- jectification is “the development of markers that encode the Speaker’s (or Writer’s) attention to the cognitive stances and social identities of the Addressee” (Traugott 2014: 9). In a historical perspective, subjectification

“involves shifts from less to more subjectively construed obligation, epis- temic attitude, etc.” (Traugott 2006: 115). In the case of epistemic adverbs, it refers to the shift from concrete referential meaning to modal: “proba- bly ‘in a provable manner’ > ‘presumably’” (Traugott 2006: 115). Traugott (2010: 35) observes that some items are pragmatically (inter)subjective, i.e. their (inter)subjective character results from contextual factors, while others have coded (inter)subjective meanings which do not depend on the context. (Inter)subjectification proper involves the development of new- ly coded (inter)subjective meanings, and not pragmatic ones. Traugott (2010: 34) has also proposed an (inter)subjectivity cline which can be used to organize synchronic data: “non-/less subjective – subjective – in- tersubjective”. It is based on the diachronic (inter)subjectification cline presented by Traugott and Dasher (2002).

The process of (inter)subjectification as well as the notions of sub- jectivity, intersubjectivity and objectivity have been discussed by a num- ber of researchers. Scholarly interest in the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity in language has a long tradition. Early studies include Bréal (1897), Bally (1965 [1932]), Benveniste (1966), Halliday (1970), and Lyons (1977). More recent accounts can be found in Langacker (1991, 2002), Finegan (1995), Hoye (1997), Nuyts (2001a, 2001b, 2014), Ver- straete (2001), Traugott and Dasher (2002), Traugott (1995a, 2003, 2010), De Smet and Verstraete (2006), Facchinetti (2009), Portner (2009), Nar- rog (2012), and many others. Generally speaking, the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity can be said to correspond to the distinction between “speaker-related and content-related function” (Verstraete 2001: 1506). However, scholars differ substantially in the ways they define sub- jectivity. As noted by Nuyts (2014: 53), “[s]everal ‘versions’ of it are circu- lating in the literature”, and those versions do not refer to exactly the same phenomena (cf. also Nuyts 2015). In the area of functionally-oriented research, Traugott’s views of subjectivity and (inter)subjectification for- mulated within the grammaticalization framework are usually contrasted with those formulated by Langacker (1991, 2002) within the framework of cognitive linguistics. Traugott views (inter)subjectification as a diachronic process of the development of inherently subjective and intersubjective meanings. Langacker’s notion of subjectivity is concerned with the explic-

it presence of the speaker in an utterance. As summarized by Nuyts (2015: 107), “the more explicit the speaker, the more subjectively construed is the event referred to”. The present study adopts Traugott’s perspective.

A number of linguists have suggested that subjectification has be- come an umbrella term for such a wide range of developments that there is a need for fine-grained distinctions in the field (Breban 2006; Visconti 2013; Narrog 2014). Visconti notes that its heterogeneity “risks ‘diluting’ the definition, making it hard to identify precise criteria for distinguish- ing subjective vs non- (or less) subjective expressions” (Visconti 2013: 9). Generally speaking, the scholars argue for the need to give separate re- cognition to “the development of ‘text-creating’ meanings” (Breban 2006: 246). Visconti suggests that “cases of ‘lexical’ subjectification, concerning shifts from concrete to internal evaluative but still propositional mean- ings”, and “cases of ‘textual’ subjectification, concerning the development of devices coding cohesion” can be separated and “conferred a different status” (Visconti 2013: 8). The recent revisions of the understanding of subjectification have led Narrog (2014) to argue that the process of gram- maticalization does not always end with the intersubjective stage, as pre- sented, among others, in Traugott and Dasher (2002), and Traugott (2010). He notes that “in the modal domain there are shifts from the intersubjec- tive further to the textual, which is the end stage of change” (Narrog 2014: 48). In his study, Narrog (2014) focuses on concessive uses of may, which combine (inter)subjective functions with textual ones, as in the sentences quoted in (11) and (12).

(11) We may have our differences from time to time, but basically we trust one another’s judgement. (Narrog 2014: 37, excerpted from Quirk et al. 1985: 224)

(12) Improbable though it may seem, they won. (Narrog 2014: 36, excerpted from the ICE Australia corpus)

In (11) and (12), may performs a primarily connective function; its epistemic sense is, as argued by Narrog (2014: 37), “weakened, or back- grounded in favour of a concessive function, relating two propositions to each other”. Traugott (2010: 31) observes that such functional duality is common among connective markers. As demonstrated in Chapters 4-10, modal adverbs also combine intersubjective functions with textual ones.

2.6. The grammaticalization framework in Polish linguistics