The modal and evidential domains are not always easily distinguishable. Even though some languages do have specific modal and evidential markers, European Portuguese does not behave the same way, having, therefore, several ways and mechanisms to mark both evidentiality and modality. The present study, based on examples retrieved from the European Portuguese corpus CETEMpúblico, thus, intends to evaluate if the traditionally considered modal adjectives, suposto (supposed) and alegado (alledged), and their corresponding adverbial forms, can convey evidential values and contribute to signal a distinction between the two domains. The examples show that these adjectives and adverbs behave distinctively from each other: suposto (and supostamente) conveys suppositional evidentiality, while alegado (and alegadamente) conveys reportative evidentiality. Even though the preferred interpretation is an evidential one, they both allow for an epistemic modal reading. This means, put differently, that, although these adjectives and adverbs have the capacity to represent both domains, modality seems to always come second: the transmission of evidential values is therefore stronger than the expression of epistemic modal values (of uncertainty). However, the epistemic reading of alegado, in particular, seems to be related to the fact that the author does not mean to compromise him/herself with the veracity of the proposition, rather than convey a certain degree of uncertainty.
The present investigation aimed to assess whether color adjectives, considering that they are qualificatives, could accept graduation and, if so, what type of scale they would be associated with. The paper begins by focusing on some of the existing literature on gradable adjectives, presenting, afterwards, some works specifically focused on color adjectives. The quantification of color adjectives was analyzed through the combination of the selected adjectives (primary colors: yellow, blue and red plus black and white) with the quantifiers muito and pouco. The results show that, in EP, the semantic investigation of this type of adjective is complex, since the readings obtained were not linear. In fact, there is, on the one hand, a typically gradable reading, which promotes a movement of the adjectives to a higher or lower point of the scale. It is possible, on the other hand, to obtain metaphorical readings, whose non-literal uses can have diverse meanings, which can either refer to physical or emotional states, skin tones, or even meanings that are very specific for EP, such as, for example, to make ayellow smile. It is thus difficult to evaluate the type of scale associated with these adjectives, since, in the case of intensity readings, there may indeed be an approximation to a representative prototype of the color, but the same does not apply to metaphorical readings
The present work analyses a legal judgment, with the aim of assessing if, in it, there are marks of its authors’ subjectivity (a collective of judges). We intend, therefore, to verify if the judges responsible for the judgment leave traces of their position, especially in the reasoning part, which is constituted by the arguments of the judges to justify their final decision - note that legal judgments are a part of the legal discourse (free of subjectivity). For that, the judgement will be analyzed according to five categories, which represent linguistic mechanisms to express subjective language: polyphony; polyphonic negation; intensifiers and minimizers; expressions with (positive or negative) semantic polarity and, finally, expressions with modal values. The results obtained al- low us to state that, even though they are not always completely explicit, these mechanisms are used to convey the opinions of the collective of judges, whose position goes in the direction of excusing the offender, while disbelieving the voice of the victim.
Our research aims to investigate the semantic differences between muito (much/very) and bem (well), as degree modifiers, when applied to modal adjectives. These adjectives, contrary to the qualificative ones, predicate over situations and not individuals. Although these intensifiers, that is, muito and bem, are in some ways similar to each other, they also have several differences, as observed by Quadros Gomes (2011). Previous work (Horn, 1989; Oliveira, 1988; 2000; 2013; Ferreira, 2013; Cantante, 2018; 2020, e.o.) has shown that modal adjectives, like qualificative adjectives, are gradable and, therefore, ordered along a scale. Taking into consideration this similarity between these two types of adjectives, and, also, the differences between muito and bem, the present work aims to explore the scalar behaviour of epistemic modal adjectives, particularly when intensified by these degree modifiers. While investigating the adjectives possível (possible), provável (probable), necessário (necessary) and certo (certain) (the latter being the only adjective located on the top of the scale), this research allowed us to find that, apart from certo, which did not accept to be modified by muito, both these adverbs act by moving the adjectives to higher points of the scale. However, it is not evident, contrary to Quadros Gomes’ claims (2011), that bem has the capacity to put these adjectives on the top of the scale, therefore closing it. It is also important to acknowledge that, although bem moves the adjectives to higher points of the scale – even higher than the movement promoted by muito – this adverb, when modifying modal adjectives, seems to contain a second component to its meaning, which involves a modal evaluation, responsible for emphasizing the degree of certainty of the speaker regarding the situation described in the utterance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.