The Spanish Conditional (with Reference to English and Czech): A Contrastive Cognitive Approach

KAROLINUM THE SPANISH CONDITIONAL (WITH REFERENCE TO ENGLISH AND CZECH): A CONTRASTIVE COGNITIVE APPROACH DANA KRATOCHVÍLOVÁ THE SPANISH CONDITIONAL DANA KRATOCHVÍLOVÁ The monograph examines the Spanish conditional (cantaría) with respect to the English conditional (would) and the Czech conditional (zpíval bych). The text presents a classifi cation of all the uses of this verb form based on cognitive grammar and Langacker’s notion of ground. The classifi cation is based on extensive authentic material obtained from parallel and monolingual corpora. The analysis takes into account the modal, temporal and evidential characteristics of the conditional. The conditional meaning is dependent on the existence of a secondary ground, which is defi ned as the default feature. the spanish conditional_mont.indd 1the spanish conditional_mont.indd 1 27.05.2022 10:4327.05.2022 10:43 THE SPANISH CONDITIONAL (WITH REFERENCE TO ENGLISH AND CZECH): A CONTRASTIVE COGNITIVE APPROACH Dana Kratochvílová This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund project “Creativity and Adaptability as Conditions of the Success of Europe in an Interrelated World” (reg. no.: CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000734) implemented at Charles University, Faculty ofArts. The project is carried out under the ERDF Call “Excellent Research” and its output is aimed at employees of research organizations and Ph.D. students. This work was supported by the project Cooperatio – Linguistics. KAROLINUM PRESS Karolinum Press is a publishing department of Charles University. Ovocný trh 560/5, 116 36 Prague 1, Czech Republic www.karolinum.cz © Dana Kratochvílová, 2022 Set in the Czech Republic by Karolinum Press Layout by Jan Šerých First edition This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. ISBN 978-80-246-5267-2 ISBN 978-80-246-5294-8 (pdf) https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024652948 Original manuscript reviewed by Petra Mračková Vavroušová (Charles University, Prague) and Jana Pešková (University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice). Univerzita Karlova Nakladatelství Karolinum www.karolinum.cz [email protected] contents 1. introduction ––––––––––––– 7 2. theoretical prerequisites ––––––––––––– 11 2.1 Langacker’stheory of ground(ing) ––––––––––––– 12 2.2 Subjectivity and subjectification ––––––––––––– 13 2.3 Tense, modality and evidentiality (TME), mutual overlaps and the relationship to the ground ––––––––––––– 15 2.3.1 Tense ––––––––––––– 15 2.3.2 Modality ––––––––––––– 16 2.3.3 Evidentiality and mirativity ––––––––––––– 17 2.3.4 TME overlaps ––––––––––––– 18 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system ––––––––––––– 21 3.1 The Spanish conditional and its place in the TME system ––––––––––––– 22 3.1.1 The Spanish mood-tense system ––––––––––––– 22 3.1.2 The evolution of the Spanish conditional and its forms ––––––––––––– 25 3.1.3 Functions of the Spanish conditional ––––––––––––– 25 3.1.4 Cantaría in the Spanish TME system ––––––––––––– 31 3.2 The English conditional and its place in the TME system ––––––––––––– 34 3.2.1 The evolution of the English conditional ––––––––––––– 34 3.2.2 Functions of the English conditional ––––––––––––– 35 3.2.3 Would in the English TME system ––––––––––––– 41 3.3 The Czech conditional and its place in the TME system ––––––––––––– 42 3.3.1 The evolution of the Czech conditional and its forms ––––––––––––– 42 3.3.2 Functions of the Czech conditional ––––––––––––– 43 3.3.3 Zpíval bych in the Czech TME system ––––––––––––– 48 3.4 Cantaría, would and zpíval bych in relation to subjectivity and subjectification ––––––––––––– 49 4. Analysis methodology ––––––––––––– 51 4.1 Elements of the graphical representation ––––––––––––– 52 4.1.1 Present tense ––––––––––––– 53 4.1.2 Past tense ––––––––––––– 55 4.1.3 Pretérito perfecto / present perfect ––––––––––––– 55 4.1.4 Future tense ––––––––––––– 56 4.1.5 Pluperfect ––––––––––––– 57 4.1.6 Conditional and ground(ing) ––––––––––––– 58 4.2 Corpus analysis methodology ––––––––––––– 58 4.2.1 Aim of the analysis ––––––––––––– 58 4.2.2 Language sample composition ––––––––––––– 59 4.2.3 Concordance obtaining procedure ––––––––––––– 60 4.2.4 Method of presenting examples from the corpus ––––––––––––– 64 5. typology of conditional uses ––––––––––––– 65 5.1 Type 1: Hypothetical conditional ––––––––––––– 66 5.1.1 1A Explicit condition/concession expressed byafinite clause ––––––––––––– 66 5.1.2 1B Explicit condition/concession not expressed by afinite clause ––––––––––––– 71 5.1.3 1C Progressive development of avirtual scenario ––––––––––––– 73 5.1.4 1D Implicit condition “if it came to that / if Iam not mistaken” ––––––––––––– 76 5.1.5 Statistics ––––––––––––– 78 5.2 Type 2: Temporal conditional ––––––––––––– 80 5.2.1 2A Future-of-the-past: sequence of tenses ––––––––––––– 80 5.2.2 2B Double viewpoint ––––––––––––– 84 5.2.3 2C Cyclical conditional ––––––––––––– 86 5.2.4 Statistics ––––––––––––– 87 5.3 Type 3: Modal-evidential conditional ––––––––––––– 89 5.3.1 3A Past-tense probabilitive ––––––––––––– 89 5.3.2 3B Past-tense dubitative ––––––––––––– 91 5.3.3 3C Past-tense admissive ––––––––––––– 94 5.3.4 3D Atemporal quotative ––––––––––––– 95 5.3.5 Statistics ––––––––––––– 99 5.4 Type 4: Mitigating conditional ––––––––––––– 99 5.4.1 4A Tentative conditional ––––––––––––– 99 5.4.2 4B Attenuating conditional ––––––––––––– 102 5.4.3 4C “If Iwere you” conditional ––––––––––––– 104 5.4.4 4D “If asked” conditional ––––––––––––– 106 5.4.5 Statistics ––––––––––––– 108 5.5 Type 5: Interactional mirative conditional ––––––––––––– 109 5.5.1 5A “Why would Ido that?” conditional ––––––––––––– 109 5.5.2 5Aa “Why would you say that?” conditional ––––––––––––– 112 5.5.3 5Ab Question-echoing conditional ––––––––––––– 113 5.5.4 5B Mirative dubitation ––––––––––––– 115 5.5.5 5C “Would you believe that” conditional ––––––––––––– 117 5.5.6 Statistics ––––––––––––– 118 5.6 Type 6: Ground echoing conditional ––––––––––––– 120 5.6.1 6A “Iwould hope so” conditional ––––––––––––– 120 5.6.2 6B “To bychom měli” conditional ––––––––––––– 121 5.6.3 6C “That would be me” conditional ––––––––––––– 122 5.6.4 Cognitive representation ––––––––––––– 123 5.6.5 Discussion regarding other approaches tothe “that would be me” conditional ––––––––––––– 124 5.6.6 Statistics ––––––––––––– 126 6. conclusions ––––––––––––– 129 6.1 General statistics ––––––––––––– 130 6.2 Conditional in the light ofcognitive grammar ––––––––––––– 132 6.3 Cantaría in contrast with would and zpíval bych and its place in the Spanish TME system ––––––––––––– 133 6.4 Prospects for further research ––––––––––––– 133 Résumé ––––––––––––– 135 References ––––––––––––– 139 Language corpora ––––––––––––– 147 1. introduction 8 As the title of this monograph suggests, the primary object of my study is the Spanish conditional (also referred to as the cantaría form). "is verb form is characterised by a wide range of seemingly unrelated uses, which can be very simplistically defined as expressing hypotheticality, past tense inference, quotation and relative posteriority. Although the conditional has traditionally been of great interest to linguists and its nature has been analysed in detail in a number of Spanish grammars (see Chapter 3), there is as yet no clear consensus on whether it is a verb mood or verb tense, and there is no uniform definition of its functions. "is monograph aims to present a unified account for all uses of cantaría, introducing it in contrast with the English and Czech conditionals. As can be seen from the above, in this monograph I take a strongly contrastive approach and compare cantaría with the English would and the Czech zpíval bych form (see Chapter 3 for a detailed analysis of the conditional paradigms in all languages analysed). I advocate that through systematic comparison and definition of the correspondences and differences between these languages, we can be#er observe both the specifics of the Spanish conditional and the features that have a clear analogy in the Czech and English conditionals. "e contrastive analysis relies on data from language corpora. "ese data are as balanced as possible for all the languages under scrutiny and reflect the language of literature, the language of the Internet, academic texts and spoken language. In this way, I try to show the conditional as a complex linguistic form with a wide range of uses, which in some cases differ in terms of register, while retaining its default function. To define the unifying principle governing the Spanish conditional, I rely theoretically on cognitive grammar as conceived by Langacker and particularly on the terms ground and subjectivity (to be defined in Chapter 2). In my concept, the initial function of cantaría, would and zpíval bych is to express the verb meaning as dependent on an implicitly construed secondary hypothetical or real situation, the fulfilment of which is the condition for the validity of verb meaning (see Chapter 5 for details). It follows from the foregoing that I find the term condicional/conditional/kondicionál, which is commonly used for these paradigms, to be quite appropriate, since it reflects the conditional dependence of the meaning expressed by the verb form. "us, throughout this monograph, I will use the term conditional whenever I refer to the sim- 9 1. introduction ple conditional in all three languages. To distinguish between the Spanish, English and Czech conditionals, I use the terms Spanish/English/Czech conditional, or the italicized representative of the respective paradigm (cantaría, would, zpíval bych).1 Due to the inherently complex nature of the conditional and the contrastive approach to the topic, which covers a wider range of languages, it is also necessary to delimit the areas of interest and, conversely, to specify which topics, however close to the problem under analysis, are not the subject of this monograph. My interest is focused on the “pure” conditional forms, i.e. on the conditionals not expressing additional modal or temporal elements. "us, my object of interest is only the simple conditional forms, not the compound ones (habría cantado, would have, byl bych zpíval). With respect to Czech (and to a limited extent English), it should be further specified that the object of my study is not the conditional with a congruential function comparable to the Spanish subjunctive. Given the double modalisation they exhibit, neither Spanish nor Czech modal verbs in the conditional form will be the subject of my study.2 Finally, the conditional meaning is investigated not only in the context of conditional clauses, but as a more general linguistic phenomenon. "erefore, this monograph is not a book on conditional clauses, as the term conditionals is sometimes conceived (Oaksford and Chater 2010; Ippolito 2011; Kratzer 2012; Stalnaker 2019 inter alia). "is monograph is organised as follows. In Chapter 2, I present the theories of ground(ing) and subjectivity, as understood by Langacker. Chapter 3 presents the Spanish, English and Czech conditionals from a general perspective and describes their basic functions as defined in the relevant bibliography. In Chapter 4, I introduce the graphical representation of verb meanings based on the grounding theory and the corpus analysis methodology. Chapter 5 represents the core of this monograph in proposing my own typology of conditional meanings, their description and cognitive representation. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions. 1 Iam aware that this way of marking conditional forms is not entirely analogous in the three languages under scrutiny. While for Spanish and Czech, Iuse the verb cantar/zpívat (‘to sing’) in the conditional form, for English Iuse only the auxiliary would. "ere are two reasons for this. Iwould find it confusing to refer to the English conditional as would sing since this is not common in English linguistics while the conditional meaning as Iexamine it in this paper is traditionally associated only with the modal would. "e second reason is that these ways of referring to the conditional form in aparticular language show the formal exponent of the conditional as accurately as possible. In Spanish, the conditional form is fully synthetic (see Chapter 3.1.2); in Czech, it is partially synthetic (see Chapter 3.3.1). "us, in these two languages, the grammatical exponent of the conditional meaning cannot be separated from the lexical base. In English, this is possible due to the isolating nature of the English verb system, so it is possible to refer to would here without the need for infinitive completion. My concern is the conditional meaning, not the lexical meaning of the verb in the conditional form. "erefore, Iabstract from the lexical basis where possible (i.e. in English). For Spanish and Czech, Icannot fully separate the conditional form from the lexical base, this being the reason for using the verb cantar/zpívat. 2 In English, double modalisation of this kind is very rare, see Hasty (2011), for asociolinguistic study of this phenomenon. 16 tochvílová 2019; Kratochvílová and Jiménez Juliá 2021) have traditionally been investigated in this area. From the opposite perspective, a#ention has been paid in particular to the means of expressing posteriority through different verb paradigms (Ma#e Bon 2006; 2007; Sobczak 2020 inter alia). In this monograph, I define the present tense as a tense indicating a partial or absolute correspondence of the verb meaning with the temporal scope of the communication situation (i.e. the ground). "e past tense denotes events, processes or states preceding the communication situation (i.e. not intervening in the ground and already realised and known to the speaker at the moment of speech). "e future tense marks the verb meaning as posterior to the communication situation. "e verb meaning expressed in the future tense does not directly intervene in the ground, but the ground and its parts are implicitly present as sources for predicting the future state of affairs. Relative tenses imply the existence of a second highly subjective ground (in this monograph, I shall use the abbreviation G2) that temporally precedes the communication situation and are oriented primarily with respect to this secondary ground. 2.3.2 modality I define modality according to Zavadil and Čermák (2010, 249) as a linguistically expressed means of validating the u#erance content. In line with Nuyts (2001a; 2006), I distinguish between deontic modality concerning will, commands and wishes, dynamic modality concerning capacity and ability and epistemic modality concerning certainty and knowledge. In addition to these generally accepted types, I also distinguish evaluative modality (cf. Zavadil 1980; Zavadil and Čermák 2010; Kratochvílová 2018b), which concerns the evaluation of a state of affairs. "e modal nature of evaluation has already been pointed out by Palmer (1986). Nevertheless, the author understands it as a subtype of deontic modality, which I consider illogical. Deontic modality refers to events, processes or states not yet realised (i.e. not confirmed in the epistemic plane) whose realisation the speaker wants to influence. Evaluative modality refers to events, processes or states that already took place (or are taking place in the moment of speech). "ese are evaluated by the speaker, without explicitly expressing the intention to influence or change them in any way. In more recent papers, evaluative modality is sometimes understood as a subtype of the epistemic and dynamic domains (refer to Larreya 2009; 2015 for the concept of root and epistemic evaluative modalisation a posteriori). However, in my understanding, this is inconsistent with the definition of epistemic modality as the expression of the certainty status of the verb meaning. In other words, epistemic modality, expresses the degree of uncertainty regarding the realisation of the verb meaning; evaluative modality expresses an a#itude towards a verb meaning whose epistemic status is not in focus. 17 2. theoretical prerequisites In relation to ground, modality primarily subjectively reflects the speaker and his/her a#itude and way of approaching the verb meaning. "e grammatical markers of the deontic modality implicitly denote that the speaker presents the verb meaning as the object of a particular person’s will. In the dynamic modality, by analogy, the speaker presents the verb meaning as the object of someone’s intentions or ability, or as the object of general necessity. "e epistemic modality is, in a broad sense, a grammatical expression of the speaker’s thought process. "e linguistic expressions of epistemicity represent verb meaning as an object of deliberation, consideration or uncertainty. Finally, through the evaluative modality, the speaker presents the verb meaning as an object of evaluation. In relation to ground and the speaker’s subjective presence in an u#erance, it should be borne in mind that the primary source of subjectively profiled volition, intention, deliberation or evaluation is the sentence subject, which may or may not coincide with the speaker. "us, within modality, I define the subjective presence of the speaker in terms of an implicit reference to the person responsible for representing the verb meaning as the object of modal assessment, not necessarily the assessment originator.4 2.3.3 evidentiality and mirativity In line with Aikhenvald (2004), the grammatical means of expressing the source of information can be understood as the centre of evidentiality. In this monograph, I distinguish three basic categories, whose naming and definitions are strongly inspired by the traditional classification introduced by Willet (1988): a) direct sensorial evidence: events, processes or states directly seen or heard, b) indirect inferential evidence: the speaker’s inference regarding the epistemic status of the verb meaning is based on considering relevant available information, c) quotative (hearsay): second or third hand information that the speaker has only by hearsay from another person or another source (radio, newspaper etc.).5 In line with the traditional approach, I understand mirativity as a specific subdomain of evidentiality, defining it as the linguistic expression of surprise and lack of psychological preparation (DeLancey 1997). Evidentiality and mirativity also oCen overlap formally, given that they can be expressed through the same affix (Aikhenvald 2014; Peterson 2017 inter alia). None of the languages analysed in this monograph has a full morphologically coded evidential system and they do not display a grammatical category that can be clearly 4 We can assume aslightly higher degree of objectivity incases where the speaker corresponds to the clause subject and (s)he is thus also the originator of the modal force expressed by the grounding element. In the opposite cases, the speaker remains entirely offstage, being only the observer and conceptualiser of the verb meaning, not its direct participant. 5 For Willet (1988), this category also includes information based on folklore or common knowledge. Iunderstand quotative more narrowly as acategory that reproduces another person’swords. 18 identified with direct sensorial evidentiality. However, the conditional in all the languages under scrutiny exhibits functions that have undeniable inferential, quotative and mirative functions. In my understanding, these categories are characterised by a specific relation to ground. "e quotative denotes information available to the speaker within the current communication situation (i.e. within the current ground), but originating from a source different from the speaker, i.e. from a different ground (G2). Inference and mirativity are related to grounding in terms of incorporating the external conditions in which communication takes place into the u#erance in an extremely subjective way. In inference, these conditions are the subject of the speaker’s reflection, based on which (s)he draws a conclusion. Mirativity then expresses the speaker’s astonishment at the incompatibility of certain information with these conditions, see also the notion of new environmental information as defined by Peterson (2017). 2.3.4 tme overlaps On the one hand, the overlaps between the categories of tense, modality and evidentiality are due to their formal expression in language, where the TME categories are oCen expressed by the same morphemes and their meanings are idiosyncratic (Zavadil 1980; Zavadil and Čermák 2010; de Haan 2012/2016). On the other hand, this interconnection is not only formal but follows the very nature of TME categories. In languages with a strong evidential system, evidentiality primarily concerns past tenses, as future events preclude sensory contact (Aikhenvald, 2004; de Haan 2012/2016; Forker 2018). Nevertheless, there is the strongly inferential nature of the future tense as such and the additional inferential meanings conveyed by verb forms functioning simultaneously as future tense (see Chapter 3; Kratochvílová 2019; Kratochvílová and Jiménez Juliá 2021). "e different evidential status of past and present events vs. future events is also related to their modal nature: epistemic assessment towards past and present is necessarily different to the epistemic nature of futurity, which can only be inferred or predicted (Jaszczolt 2009). Deontic modality is inseparable from temporality in the sense that volition can only be oriented towards the future. On the other hand, evaluation is primarily concerned with verb meanings already in progress or past (but see Kratochvílová 2018b on understanding volition as a combination of uncertainty and personal evaluation). While the relation of dynamic and deontic modality to the evidential tends to stand aside, epistemic modality is already seen as inherently connected to evidentiality by Palmer (1986), who places the evidentials in the epistemic modal system. "e relationship between these two categories is complex and it exceeds the scope of this monograph. For an exhaustive survey of approaches to this issue, I suggest referring to Wiemer (2018). If we understand the different evidentials as formal exponents of different sources of information, their relation to the epistemic modality appears to 19 2. theoretical prerequisites be undeniable: events whose realisation we have directly witnessed necessarily have a different epistemic status than events whose realisation is the subject of inference or hearsay. In the context of the relationship between the evaluative modality and the evidential, we can point to the evaluative element of some hearsay markers, which combine the notion of non-first-hand information with the speaker’s epistemic and evaluative distance from its content. A strong connection between evaluative modality and evidentiality can be observed within the subcategory of mirativity: amazement at the newly acquired information can be simultaneously defined as a type of personal evaluation of the verb meaning. As the above shows, TME categories are inherently interconnected on different levels, yet are distinct in their nature. In my understanding, the above overlaps are because all TME categories are anchored in ground, which is also complex and is usually approached as a whole. Langacker does not pay deep a#ention in his papers to concrete elements constituting the ground. In Kratochvílová (2018a; 2019), I point out that distinguishing the different facets of the ground and defining their relationship to TME categories can be a means of thoroughly analysing the meaning of a particular verb form in different contexts. In the following chapters, I further develop this initial theory with respect to the conditional. In Chapter 4, I will first a#empt a graphical representation of the roles of temporality, modality and evidentiality within the ground outlined above. In Chapter 5, I use this representation to detail the various functions of the conditional. 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system 22 3.1 the spanish conditional and its place in the tme system 3.1.1 the spanish mood-tense system "e Spanish verb system, as an heir of the Latin verb system, shows distinctly fusional features. In terms of tenses, we distinguish between simple and compound forms. "e simple tenses express the temporal orientation morphologically through suffixes. In the indicative, their formal paradigms are: Presente de indicativo (present indicative): canto (‘I sing’) Futuro de indicativo (future indicative): cantaré (‘I will sing’) Pretérito indefinido (past tense, indefinite past tense): canté (‘I sung’) Pretérito imperfecto de indicativo (imperfective past tense indicative): cantaba (‘I was singing’) "e compound past tenses express the temporal orientation through the auxiliary haber in the definite form and the participle. "eir formal paradigms in the indicative follow: Pretérito perfecto de indicativo (present perfect indicative): he cantado (‘I have sung’) Futuro perfecto de indicativo (future perfect indicative): habré cantado (‘I will have sung’) Pretérito pluscuamperfecto de indicativo (pluperfect indicative): había cantado (‘I had sung’) "e subjunctive traditionally stands in opposition to the indicative, these two verbal moods thus representing the core of the Spanish modal system (cf. Zavadil 1980; Zavadil and Čermák 2010; Kratochvílová 2014; 2018b). "e formal paradigm of the Spanish subjunctive in all tenses follows: 23 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system Presente de subjuntivo (present subjunctive): cante. Despite being called present subjunctive, this form expresses both simultaneity and posteriority, thus being the subjunctive counterpart for the indicative forms canto and cantaré.6 Imperfecto de subjuntivo (imperfective past subjunctive): cantara. "is form is the counterpart for the indicative forms cantaba and canté. Pretérito perfecto de indicativo (present perfect subjunctive): haya cantado. "is form is the counterpart for the indicative forms he cantado and habré cantado.7 "e subjunctive appears primarily in subordinate clauses, formally expressing modal congruence with the modal meaning of the main clause. "ere are wide possibilities for its use (for a complete list, refer to Kratochvílová and Dolníková 2022). A basic overview of subordinate clauses and mood choice in Spanish is summarised in Table 1. Table 2 defines the contexts in which the Spanish subjunctive can appear in the main clause. Table 1. Mood in subordinate clauses in Spanish. Subordinate clause Meaning Mood Content clause factuality ind volition, causativity sbjv evaluation sbjv potentiality ind/sbjv8 Relative clause reference to a concrete antecedent ind reference to a non-concrete antecedent sbjv stating an already known or irrelevant information through el (hecho) de que (‘the fact that’) sbjv Purpose clause sbjv Manner clause realisation manner is declared ind realisation manner is the subject’s purpose (dynamic modal element) sbjv manner expressed through sin que (‘without’) sbjv 6 Future tense subjunctive (cantare) formally exists in contemporary Spanish, but it considered obsolete and is only used in legal or archaising texts. 7 Similarly to the future tense subjunctive, the future perfect subjunctive (hubiere cantado) is an obsolete form and practically unused in contemporary Spanish. 8 "e mood choice depends on the level of potentiality expressed by the main clause predicate, see Kratochvílová (2018b). 24 Subordinate clause Meaning Mood Temporal clause expressing simultaneity or anteriority with reference to the main clause or the moment of speech ind expressing posteriority with reference to the main clause or the moment of speech sbjv Conditional clause zero ind first ind/sbjv9 second and third sbjv Concessive clause possibility (analogical to first conditional clause) ind/sbjv10 non-factuality (analogical to second and third conditional clauses) sbjv Table 2. Subjunctive in Spanish main clauses. Main clause Mood Wish clause sbjv Main clause with adverbs meaning “maybe” (quizá(s), tal vez, acaso, probablemente, posiblemente, seguramente)ind/sbjv11 Main clause expressing evaluation through qué + nominal (for instance, qué pena – ‘what a shame’) ind/sbjv12 "e imperative concludes the list of moods traditionally recognised in Spanish grammars. "e negative imperative and the positive imperative for usted (‘yousg.form’), ustedes (‘youpl.form’) and nosotros (‘we’) use the respective subjunctive forms. "e positive imperative for tú (‘yousg.inform’) is identical to the third person present tense indicative (canta). "e positive imperative for vosotros (‘youpl.inform’) is formed from the infinitive (cantar) by replacing the suffix -r with -d (cantad). "e Spanish conditional (cantaría), which is the main focus of this monograph, stands on the borderline between verb tenses and verb moods. Its formal paradigm and its main functions are described in detail in the following pages. 9 "e mood choice in conditional sentences expressing areal condition in the future depends on the conjunction used. "e most frequent conjunction si (‘if’) is always used with the indicative, the subjunctive is used in conditional sentences with conjunctions other than si. 10 "e mood choice in concessive clauses expressing acondition analogical to the first conditional depends mostly on pragmatics. An already known or presupposed concession is expressed through the subjunctive. If the content of the subordinate concessive clause is presented as new and relevant to the addressee, the indicative is used. 11 "e mood choice depends on the level of potentiality the speaker wishes to express, see Kratochvílová (2018b). 12 "e semantic difference between using the subjunctive and the indicative is negligible in these contexts. 25 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system 3.1.2 the evolution of the spanish conditional and its forms "e Spanish conditional developed in close connection with the future tense forms. "e Spanish future, like the future in other Romance languages (Portuguese, French, Italian, Catalan, but not Romanian), evolved from a verbal periphrasis already used in spoken Latin expressing obligation. "e periphrasis was formed by the infinitive of a fully semantic verb and the auxiliary habēre in the present tense: cantāre habeō (substitution for cantābō used in Classical Latin) → cantar (h)e → cantaré (‘I will sing’). As observed by Penny (1991/2009, 206–207) “In this structure, habeō rarely kept its most basic sense (‘I possess’), but gave the clause a nuance of ‘intention’ (‘I intend to sing’), then of obligation (‘I must sing’), and finally (since intentions and obligations are necessarily directed towards the future) a notion of simple futurity (‘I shall sing’).” "e Spanish conditional develops by analogy from the periphrastic construction with the verb habēre in the imperfect: cantāre habēbam (‘I intended to sing’, ‘I had to sing’) → cantar (h)ía → cantaría (‘I would sing’). "e original Late Latin periphrasis had only two basic meanings: the hypothetical meaning realised in the apodosis of conditional clauses and the meaning of relative posteriority (see Azzopardi 2013; Penny 1991/2009, 207–208). "e complete formal paradigm of Spanish conditional appears in Table 3. Table 3. $e Spanish conditional. Formal paradigm. Singular Plural 1st person cantaría cantaríamos 2nd person cantarías cantaríais 3rd person cantaría cantarían "e compound conditional habría cantado is also actively used in nowadays Spanish, with the relationship between cantaría / habría cantado being largely analogous to the English opposition I would sing / I would have sung. However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, only the forms of the simple conditional that do not bear the additive tense-aspect characteristics common to all compound tenses will be the subject of analysis in this monograph. 3.1.3 functions of the spanish conditional As stated above, the original functions of cantaría were two and can be defined as the hypothetical conditional and the expression of relative posteriority. Other functions 32 cantado to express relative anteriority (Dijo que había cantado – ‘(S)he said (s)he had sung’). On the other hand, the argument against understanding cantaría as one of the indicative tenses, is the fact that in many uses it does not construe the verb meaning as coinciding with reality. Conditional meaning is oCen interpreted only as theoretically possible, dependent on fulfilling a condition or even implicitly negated. "e speaker’s epistemic stance here is thus the opposite of that expressed by the indicative. To summarise, it can be concluded that the formal criteria place cantaría alongside the indicative tenses. "e semantic criteria, on the other hand, point to a fundamental epistemic element that distinguishes it from paradigms such as canto, cantaba, cantaré or había cantado. "e debate about how to define Spanish verb forms and whether cantaría can be placed at the level of the indicative-subjunctive-(imperative) opposition is one of the traditional questions in Spanish grammars. "e formal designation of cantaría (and the associated situating of this form in one of the traditional verb categories) is variable across time and grammars. In an exhaustive analysis of cantaría in Spanish grammars wri#en between the years 1492 and 1771, Zamorano Aguilar (2017) finds a total of eleven different formal labels that the form received. "ese oscillate between emphasising the preterit, imperfective, relative-posteriority and potentially-optative components of its meaning. "e inconsistent understanding of cantaría has continued aCer the establishment of the Spanish Royal Academy (Real Academia Española, RAE) in 1773, with even the authors of principal reference grammars published across the 20th century differing in their opinions. Samuel Gili Gaya, author of one of the most cited works on Spanish grammar, Curso superior de la sintaxis española (Gili Gaya 1943/1971, 146), refers to the cantaría forms as futuro hipotético (‘hypothetical future’) and classifies them as indicative tenses. RAE also understands the form as indicative in Esbozo de una nueva gramática española (RAE 1973, 472). A different perspective is then taken by Alarcos Llorach in his Gramática de la lengua española, which until the 2009 edition of Nueva gramática de la lengua española by RAE served largely as a normative grammar. Alarcos Llorach makes a distinction between modo indicativo (‘indicative mood’), modo condicionado (‘conditional mood’) and modo subjuntivo (‘subjunctive mood’) (Alarcos Llorach 1994/2008, 193), giving the cantaría paradigm the status of a verb mood. It is not my aim here to present all the approaches to the definition of the category of modality in Spanish and to the place cantaría occupies in the Spanish mood-tense system. A basic overview is offered by García Fajardo (2000), an overview from the perspective of teaching Spanish as a foreign language is offered by Zamorano Aguilar and Martínez-Atienza de Dios (2020) and the topic is exhaustively summarised by Veiga (1991). Veiga ultimately favours an understanding of the Spanish conditional as an indicative form that exhibits a number of modal functions, which, however, cannot be equated with the basic indicative-subjunctive dichotomy (cf. Veiga 1991, 105–106). "e very fact that the conditional appears in Spanish in contexts where the indicative could also be used and does not alternate with the subjunctive is the argument based 33 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system on which this form is also understood as indicative in the current normative grammar by the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE 2009). In addition to the discussion concerning the relationship of cantaría to tense and modality, it is also necessary to consider its evidential dimension. Studies of evidentiality in the Spanish or Romance verbal system are relatively recent. In relation to the conditional, Mario Squartini’s (2001) paper can be considered to be pioneering in systematically comparing the inferential and reportative functions of the Romance future and Romance conditional. With respect to evidential meanings of cantaría, uses referred to in this monograph as past tense probabilitive and atemporal quotative are in focus. "e atemporal quotative and its reportative functions have been the subject of a number of recent monothematic studies (Böhm and Hennemann 2014; Kronning 2015; 2018; Bermúdez 2016; García Negroni 2021), with this conditional type being analysed separately from other functions of cantaría. Atemporal quotative is presented as a specific use of the Spanish conditional that probably emerged under the influence of French. "e quotative use of cantaría is then put in the context of quotative uses of other Spanish verb forms, namely the analytical future ir a + infinitive and the imperfect. "e inferential uses of cantaría, on the other hand, are analysed in analogy to inferential (modal-evidential) uses of cantaré. From an evidential perspective, Rivero (2014) analyses all the functions that cantaré and cantaría have in common. "e author defines them as inferential and mirative, cantaré representing an inference about present or future events, cantaría expressing the same kind of inference in relation to the past. A radically evidential-based approach to cantaré is taken by Escandell-Vidal (2010; 2014; 2018), who sees the inferential component of its meaning as fundamental. According to this author, the future tense does not serve primarily to prospectively orient the verb meaning with respect to the moment of speech but to express inference which, at the same time, “indicates that the evidence the speaker has does not come from direct perception” (Escandell-Vidal 2014, 236). All non-prospective uses of cantaré then serve, according to the author, as a proof that cantaré in contemporary Spanish functions as a morphological inferential. Escandell-Vidal focuses on cantaré, mentioning cantaría explicitly only with respect to its quotative function (2014, 241). However, it can be assumed that the uses of cantaría analogous to those of cantaré could be interpreted according to the same principle, i.e. as verbal forms with a strong inferential component, which gives them an essential place in the evidential subsystem of the Spanish verb. In my view, the approaches presented above fail to apprehend the Spanish conditional in its complexity. Traditional discussions whether cantaría is a tense or a mood suggest that it is always possible to draw a dividing line between these two categories. At the same time, they completely neglect the evidential component of its meaning. Approaches that emphasise the evidential dimension of inferential and quotative uses of cantaría separate these functions from others and do not focus on the paradigm as a whole. "e result is an unclear and unbalanced picture, where these functions are not put in clear relation to each other. An exception in this sense is the recent work 34 of Arrigo (2020), who examines quotative and inferential uses together. Nevertheless, Arri go’s analysis focuses only on journalistic language and on the role of the conditional in journalistic discourse. "e author does not clarify how the TME components combine in the cantaría form. Another fundamental problem is that authors focusing on the evidential component of specific uses of cantaría generally leave aside its hypothetical and mitigating uses, whose evidential component has not yet been thoroughly investigated. Continuing the line introduced in Kratochvílová (2018a; 2018b; 2019), I understand modal, temporal and evidential meanings as inherently connected and inseparable from each other in a number of contexts. My approach to cantaría refuses to identify it with any of the TME categories. Instead, I focus on how temporality, modality and evidentiality interact when the conditional is used in different contexts. In Chapter 5, I propose a unified approach to all the functions of cantaría, which on the one hand clearly defines the broad spectrum of meanings this form can cover but on the other allows us to see all the functions in relation to each other. 3.2 the english conditional and its place in the tme system 3.2.1 the evolution of the english conditional From the diachronic point of view, the English conditional displays similarities to cantaría. "e English conditional is formed by the auxiliary would and the bare infinitive. Today’s English would evolved from wolde, which functioned as a past tense form of will (wylle/wile) indicating the speaker’s volition or desire. As in Spanish, both forms then underwent an evolutionary path in which their functions partially disconnected. "e originally dynamic volitive will became established as an auxiliary marking the prospective temporal orientation (i.e. it began to function as the future tense). "e past form would, like cantaría, established itself as a means of expressing relative posteriority (i.e. futureof-the-past). Nevertheless, at the same time, would gradually acquired the function of a hypothetical conditional independent of will. Bybee (1995) argues convincingly against understanding would as a past form of will with a primary future-of-the-past function, from which hypothetical functions would emerge. "e author notes that the hypothetical use of would is documented before the time when will desemanticised and became (primarily) a future tense auxiliary (Bybee 1995, 515). For a more detailed analysis of the evolution of the different meanings of would, see Warner (1993) inter alia. "e difference with Spanish, in this case, is the original function of will/would, which did not express an obligation as in the case of cantāre habeō/habēbam, but the subject’s willingness to do something. "e original dynamic function remains prom- 35 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system inent in some of today’s uses of will/would, which lack a Spanish counterpart. "ese uses are mentioned in Chapter 3.2.2. From the point of view of formal paradigmatics and the role of the conditional within the TME system, the crucial difference is the analytic form of the English conditional, which formally orients will/would among other modals (can/could, may/might, shall/should). However, given the strongly temporal meaning of today’s will, the understanding of this auxiliary as a modal verb is questionable, which is reflected in the question of how to understand the partially related would. 3.2.2 functions of the english conditional When describing the basic functions of would, I shall proceed analogically to Chapter 3.1.3 where functions of cantaría are described. I distinguish six major groups: hypothetical conditional, temporal conditional, mitigating conditional, interactional mirative conditional, “that would be me” conditional and quasi-subjunctive conditional. 1) Hypothetical conditional "e hypothetical would is largely analogous to the hypothetical cantaría. "e conditional meaning is construed as dependent on an explicit or implicit condition: (19) If I could, I would sing. ‘Si pudiera, cantaría.’ "is type is sometimes labelled as general hypothetical marker (Coates 1983) or conséquence d’une hypothèse irréelle ou non probable (‘consequence of an unreal or unlikely hypothesis’, Larreya 2015). "is conditional type is analysed in Chapter 5.1. 2) Temporal conditional a) Future-of-the past conditional "e default temporal function of would is again comparable to the analogous function of cantaría. "e conditional meaning refers to a certain moment in the past, posterior to another moment in the past. "e verb meaning is unconfirmed from the perspective of the present: (20) He told me he would sing. ‘Me dijo que cantaría.’ "is function is also labelled as past (of will) (Coates 1983; Palmer 1990) and will be analysed in Chapter 5.2. 36 b) Double viewpoint conditional Like cantaría, would can also appear in syntactically independent clauses expressing a verb meaning posterior to a moment in the past and simultaneously confirmed from the perspective of the present. Uses represented by (21) are further analysed in Chapter 5.2.2. (21) John promised Martha that she would take care of everything. Later, Martha would find out that he was lying. ‘Juan le prometió a Marta que se ocuparía de todo. Más tarde, Marta se enteraría de que estaba mintiendo.’ "e difference with Spanish is the wider range of modal notions that the future- -of-the-past and double viewpoint would can take. "is is due to the different range of modal meanings that will denotes in the present tense perspective. Of course, like cantaré, will marks verb meanings situated in the future. However, the question of how to define the modal-evidential element of its prospective use (and subsequently of would when expressing relative posteriority) is more complicated than for cantaré. Unmarked prospective interpretations of will analogous to cantaré (John will be at home tomorrow) are primarily related to epistemic modality in the literature (Collins 2009); Go#i (2003) defines them as prediction within dynamic modality. In a non-actual temporal perspective, these uses correspond to the temporal would analogous to the temporal cantaría. From a modal-evidential perspective, these uses can be seen as close to the interpretation proposed for cantaré/cantaría, i.e. (relative) prospective inference (see Chapter 3.1.3). In terms of comparison with Spanish, the use of will, referred to as willingness (Coates 1983), volition (Palmer 1990), deontic volition (Go#i 2003), dynamic (volitive) will/would (Collins 2009), volition isochrone (‘isochronous volition’, Larreya 2015), is more problematic. "is interpretation of will/would arises from the original dynamic function of this auxiliary, which cantaré/cantaría lacks. "rough will/would, the verb meaning can be construed as posterior (absolutely or relatively) and as resulting from the subject’s will and intentions. "us, from the point of view of modal-evidential interpretation, (22) and (23) are not entirely analogous: (22) Martha won’t say the truth. Martha no dirácantaré la verdad. (23) We asked her several times, but Martha wouldn’t say the truth. Le preguntamos varias veces, pero Marta no diría la verdad. "e Spanish dirá/diría does not express dynamic volition or intention. "e meaning of “say” is construed as posterior, and in terms of modality and evidentiality we 37 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system can speak of prospective inference in both cases (i.e. “everything indicates/indicated that Marta is/was not going to say the truth”). "e English counterparts share the temporal interpretation with the Spanish constructions but the modal element could be interpreted in terms of “Martha isn’t/wasn’t willing to tell the truth”. Huddlestone and Pullum (2002, 197) label these uses as a volitional subtype of the dynamic use of would defining them as typically used in non-affirmative contexts. Close to the above described dynamic volitional would is the propensive use, which can appear in affirmative contexts. In this respect, Huddlestone and Pullum (2002) comment on the example of He would call round just when I wanted an early night. "e authors define the meaning associated with the conditional in this context as expressing a one-time event, but with a shade of typicality: “the event is presented as typical. What it is typical of is not expressed, but we infer something like ‘typical of the inconvenient/annoying things that he does or that happen (to me)’” (Huddlestone and Pullum 2002, 198). I will continue to refer to the dynamic volitive and propensive uses of would relating to a one-off and non-repeated event as volitive-intentional would. "eses uses can also metaphorically relate to inanimate subjects ($e door won’t/wouldn’t open). However, the volitive-intentional interpretation cannot always be clearly distinguished from the prospective-inferential one. (22) and (23) could theoretically be paraphrased in a way closer to the Spanish interpretation: “Martha is/was not intending to say the truth; from which it is/was inferred that she will/would not say it”. "e fact that the volitive-intentional element never overrides the temporal- -epistemic one is also confirmed by Palmer, who contrasts the constructions He was not willing to come, but he came and *He wouldn’t come, but he came (1990, 196). "e la#er is unacceptable in my understanding for the reason that would does not function here as a mere modal auxiliary. "e subject’s unwillingness to come is also the source of the prospective inference concerning the non-realisation of “come”. "us, would combines modal, temporal and inferential elements in a similar way to Spanish cantaría, only the modal component here is of two kinds (epistemic and dynamic). My primary interest in this monograph is the interpretation of the Spanish conditional. English and Czech serve primarily as languages providing a perspective “from the other side”, which allows me to see the Spanish conditional in a broader context. For this reason, I will not single out dynamic volitive-intentional would as a specific subtype in the analyses in Chapter 5.2. c) Cyclical conditional "e characteristics of would referred to by Huddlestone and Pullum (2002, 197) and Collins (2009, 140) as propensive are more oCen found in contexts where the conditional denotes repeated events. Palmer (1990) refers to these usages as habitual. I use the term cyclical conditional. "ese uses will be analysed in Chapter 5.2.3. In Spanish, cantaría does not appear in similar contexts. 38 (24) John would visit Martha every day and they would talk for hours. 3) Mitigating conditional Like cantaría, would can be used to mitigate the content of an u#erance and its impact on the addressee: (25) "is would suggest that the problem is more serious than we thought. ‘Esto indicaría que el problema es más grave de lo que pensábamos.’ (26) It would be be#er to wait. ‘Sería mejor esperar.’ (27) I would prefer the second option. ‘Preferiría la segunda opción.’ Huddlestone and Pullum (2002) and Collins (2009) refer to purely pragmatic uses of would represented by (27) as tentative conditionals. I will use the term a%enuating conditional for them in analogy with the Spanish typology. "e conditional referred to as tentative has a different meaning for me and includes all uses where the mitigation is due to speaker uncertainty, i.e. the example (25).16 Example (26) stands at the borderline between these two interpretations. Furmaniak and Larreya (2015) and Larreya (2015) refer to uses represented by (25) as conjectural, a term that is nevertheless preferable to avoid in view of the comparison with Spanish. Recall that condicional de conjetura (past-tense probabilitive, in my terminology) refers to the use of cantaría expressing probability in the past tense. Tentative uses of would expressing the speaker’s uncertainty are not analogous to probabilitive (conjectural) cantaría, since they can refer to the present and cannot be understood as the past tense of central epistemic will.17 16 Palmer (1990) understands tentative would in asimilar way. 17 Non-prospective uses close to probabilitive cantaré (John will be at home now) are classified as epistemic (Coates 1983; Palmer 1990), central-epistemic (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 200; Collins 2009) or epistemic inference (Go#i 2003). While the probabilitive cantaré has its past-tense counterpart in the probabilitive cantaría, the mean ings associated with the probabilitive (or central-epistemic/epistemic inference) will are difficult to express in English via would in the past tense perspective. Coates (1983, 208) presents the clauses $at will be the milkman and $at would be the milkman as analogous, expressing epistemic predictability with reference to the present (will) or to the past (would), i.e. as corresponding to the probabilitive uses of cantaré and cantaría. Sweetser (1998/1990, 63) also uses the term past tense of epistemic will to refer to similar contexts. However, this analogy is challenged by Huddleston and Pullum (2002) when they present it in opposing sentences He’ll be about sixty (classified by the authors as central-epistemic will) and He’d be about sixty. "e would variant differs from central-epistemic will not in its temporal orientation (which in both cases is simultaneous with the moment of speech), but in the modal 39 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system "e tentative and a#enuating conditional will be analysed in Chapter 3.4. 4) Interactional mirative conditional "e mirative use of would in questions responding to a surprising finding is only partially analogous to Spanish. Would is used in two types of mirative contexts: a) Non-factual mirativity I use the term non-factual mirativity for contexts where the speaker expresses surprise while questioning the factuality of the verb meaning: (28) Who would do something like that? ‘¿Quién haría algo así?’ ("e implied meaning being “I am not sure that someone actually did it.”) (29) Would you believe that? ("e implied meaning being “It is so surprising/unusual/strange that I am not sure whether you can believe it.”)18 b) Factual mirativity "is type of mirative conditional is only used in English; Spanish does not allow the use of cantaría in similar contexts. I use the term factual mirativity to refer to contexts where the speaker forms a question with would that does not question the validity of the verb meaning: (30) Why would you say that? ("e implied meaning being “I don’t dispute the fact that you said it, but I don’t understand your reasons for saying it.”) "is usage is extensively analysed by Larreya (2015), who uses the term contextes épistémiques factuels (‘factual epistemic contexts’) to refer to it. Furmaniak and Larreya notion of higher uncertainty in the case of would, which the authors define as “marginally weaker still, less confident” (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 200). Ifavour Huddleston and Pullum’sapproach in this monograph, seeing the past-tense probabilitive use of would as marginal. "is is probably mainly due to the significantly lower frequency of use of the pure probabilitive (epistemic) will compared to Spanish. For English, Iunderstand the central systemic counterpart of the probabilitive cantaré/cantaría to be the epistemic must / must have. "is is confirmed by Palmer (1990), who defines the difference between epistemic will and must in terms of “reasonable conclusion” (will) and the “only possible conclusion on the basis of evidence available” (must) (Palmer 1990, 57–58). "e evidential-inferential element of the probabilitive cantaré, then, pits these usages precisely against epistemic must, not will (analogously, probabilitive cantaría ≈ epistemic must have). 18 In Spanish, the cantaría form is typical only of the first type of factual mirative contexts represented by (28), not of (29). 40 (2015) use the term conjectural would in factual contexts, which I find confusing, since conjecture is, in my understanding, identical to inference, which by its nature can never be factual. Celle (2018) speaks of epistemic evaluation in factual contexts when referring to this type of would. Given that in my understanding the most salient element of this conditional type is evidentiality and mirativity, not modality, I avoid the term epistemic here and analyse these uses in Chapter 5.5. 5) TWBMCond Unlike Spanish, English also has a specific use of would, which I refer to as the “that would be me” conditional (TWBMCond). (31) (Nurse calling a patient in the waiting room): Mr Smith? Mr Smith: "at would be me. "is type of conditional is understood by Palmer (1990) as tentative. Nowadays, the predominant label is epistemic would (Ward et al. 2003; 2007; Birner et al. 2007; Gravano et al. 2008; Ward 2011; Song 2008; 2011; Celle 2012; 2018; Kim 2017). I classify this type as a specific kind of ground-echoing conditional (see Chapter 5.6), which is due to its strong connection to the current communication situation (TWBMCond, in my understanding, responds to an explicit or implicit question that is emphasised and echoed in the verb meaning). 6) Quasi-subjunctive In a limited set of contexts, would displays functions similar or apparently similar to the Spanish subjunctive. (32) I wish you would stop doing that. (33) It is interesting you would say that. Uses illustrated by (32) are interpreted by Collins (2009, 141) as a specific type of hypothetical would. Constructions illustrated by (33), where would appears in a non-epistemic context, are defined as a specific subtype of factual conjectural would by Furmaniak and Larreya (2015). In Spanish, the subjunctive would be obligatorily used in both contexts (Deseo que dejessbjv de hacerlo, Es interesante que digassbjv esto) given that (32) is a content clause subordinate to a predicate expressing volition and (33) is a content clause subordinate to a predicate expressing evaluation (see Chapter 3.1.1). In my view, the difference lies in the (non-)autonomy of the conditional. I assess would in (33) as syntactically dependent on the main clause and devoid of autonomous meaning (*You 41 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system would say that). Would in (32) refers to the subject’s will and mitigates the u#erance content (similar to I would be grateful if you would stop doing that and the autonomous Would you stop doing that, please?). I therefore understand would in content clauses syntactically dependent on an evaluation predicate as quasi-subjunctive and will not address it in this monograph. I understand if/wish + would constructions as partially subjunctive, but with a mitigating component, and analyse them as a#enuating conditionals in Chapter 5.4.2. 3.2.3 would in the english tme system As a rule, Spanish grammars do not question the status of cantaré as a morphological future tense.19 However, the debate is with respect to the understanding of the conditional cantaría and its polyfunctionality (see Chapter 3.1.4). However, in the English grammar, the primary issue is the understanding of will. Formally, will behaves like other English modal verbs. Will is also closely connected to would, which expresses the undeniably modal meanings of hypotheticality or tentativeness. Nevertheless, will is also the primary means of expressing absolute posteriority, i.e. a fundamental exponent of the traditional past–present–future temporal system. As noted above, for Spanish grammarians the analogy of cantaré and cantaría is one of the main arguments for understanding cantaría as an indicative verb form. For English, this perspective can be reversed: Huddlestone and Pullum (2002, 208–210) define will as a modal, not a verb tense, precisely with respect to its relation to would (other reasons are then the semantic and formal similarities with the modals can, may, must). Traditional key works on English modals by Coates (1983) and Palmer (1990) also understand will as a modal auxiliary but see Declerck (2009) for a persuasive counter argumentation. "e subject of this paper is primarily the Spanish conditional and I do not aim to provide an exhaustive argument for or against understanding will/would as verb tense exponents or modal auxiliaries. As in the case of cantaría, I am opposed to identifying would (but also, by analogy, will) with a single verb category. In Chapter 5, I will a#empt to present a unified cognitive-oriented approach that allows the temporal, modal, and evidential-mirative dimensions of would to be understood and analysed as inherently interrelated. 19 "is approach is questioned by Zavadil (1980), Zavadil and Čermák (2010), Kratochvílová (2018b) and Kratochvílová (2019). "e authors point out the strong position of cantaré for expressing morphological probability and propose to see its probabilitive functions as independent of the prospective (temporal) ones. 48 congruential functions of zpíval bych is difficult, especially because even the function of the subjunctive/conjunctive in languages where its existence is not disputed (such as Spanish), has not yet been clarified.22 In view of the comparison with Spanish, all the above-mentioned quasi-subjunctive uses of zpíval bych will be excluded from the investigation in this monograph. 3.3.3 zpíval bych in the czech tme system Since the Czech conditional lacks a clear temporal component and does not display a relationship with the future tense, it is unquestionably understood as a verb mood (ČSAV 1986; Karlík et al. 1995; Štícha et al. 2013; Karlík 2017) which (together with the imperative) stands in opposition to the indicative. Despite being oCen labelled as podmiňovací způsob (‘conditioning mood’), the question is to what extent conditionality (podmíněnost, in Czech) is really the default value of zpíval bych. "is is postulated as such by Štícha et al. (2013, 435) while other approaches prefer less specific terms such as hypotetičnost (‘hypotheticality’, ČSAV 1986, 166) and nereálnost (‘unreality’, Karlík et al. 1995, 593; Karlík 2017). Probably the most concise definition is provided by Svoboda (1973), who postulates two basic functions of zpíval bych: podmíněná výpovědnost (‘conditional declaration’, verb meaning dependent on a condition, but not completely unreal) and možnost až neskutečnost (‘possibility ranging with unreality’, the verb meaning depends on a condition, the factuality of which we do not want to declare). We can conclude that similar to Spanish and English, the Czech conditional is a problematic form in terms of its definition and classification. "e reason is not its inherent connection with the future tense, but the wide range of functions covering both modally-independent hypotheticality (in the broadest possible sense, i.e. both hypothetical and mitigating conditional) and modal dependency and non-reality in Zavadil’s sense (Zavadil 1980; Zavadil and Čermák 2010), which follows from the congruential function of zpíval bych. Since my primary object of investigation is Spanish, I do not aim to describe the Czech conditional exhaustively in this paper. However, the systemic comparisons presented in Chapter 5 provide a tool for analysing and defining all the non- -congruential (non-quasi-subjunctive) uses of the Czech conditional and propose a basic definition of its meaning, which I postulate as analogous to the default function of cantaría and would. 22 Refer to Kratochvílová (2016) and Kratochvílová and Dolníková (2022) for an extended discussion on the search for aunified account for the Spanish subjunctive. 49 3. the spanish, english and czech conditionals and their place inthe tme system 3.4 cantaría, would and zpíval bych in relation to subjectivity and subjectification Before proceeding with the analysis of the Spanish, English and Czech conditional, I shall briefly return to the interrelated concepts of grounding, subjectivity and subjectification as presented in Chapter 2. I aim to present the three conditionals under scrutiny in the light of these cognitive concepts, thus combining the chapters dedicated to conditional forms and functions to those dedicated to the cognitive theoretical concepts exploited in this monograph. In terms of subjectivity and subjectification, will/would is a prototypical example of an originally fully semantic verb denoting the subject’s will, which became a grammatical exponent of (relative) posteriority or the speaker’s epistemic assessment, i.e. a pure grounding element. What is significant here is that the shiC in meaning occurred gradually (cf. Warner 1993; Bybee 1955). "e gradual nature of the relationship between will/ would as a semi-semantical denoting the subject’s will and a grammatical exponent implicitly referring to the ground remains evident even in the synchronic perspective. In their analysis of the contrast between objectivity and subjectivity, de Smet and Verstraete (2006) analyse the volitional and epistemic uses of will in the following examples: (43) Mum won’t let us go out tonight. I asked her but she said we had partied more than enough this week. (44) Judith won’t be late. She never is. (Both examples taken from de Smet and Verstraete 2006, 367.) Will in (43) is understood by the authors as objective (an expression of the speaker’s will, won’t = “is not willing to”). Its subjective counterpart is the epistemic will in (44), which bears no trace of the original dynamic volitive meaning and expresses only the speaker’s judgement (in my understanding, an inference drawn from the available information that Judith is never late). My claim is that the opposition between objectivity and subjectivity is less straightforward given that will in (43) simultaneously expresses the subject’s unwillingness to let the kids go out and the speaker’s conclusion based on this (i.e. “we are not going to go out tonight”), the la#er being expressed with a high degree of subjectivity. In any case, modals expressing deontic modality are closer to their original meaning and construe the speaker with a slightly higher degree of objectivity than epistemic modals (for more details, see Langacker 2003 inter alia; on the understanding of the epistemic domain as a metaphorical extension of the dynamic/deontic domain, see Sweetser 1998/1990). 50 As argued in Kratochvílová (2018a; 2019), an analysis of the degree of subjectivity with which different ground components are reflected in an u#erance can function as a tool to distinguish the different functions of one verbal form and define them with precision. "us, I understand in this monograph the English would as a grounding element that has undergone a process of subjectification from a fully semantical meaning “was/were willing to” into an exponent of different modal, temporal and evidential meanings. "e Spanish conditional (more precisely, its formal exponent -(r)ía) can also be defined as a grounding element. In terms of subjectification, its emergence was more complicated. "e original periphrasis cantāre habēbam already subjectively expressed obligation or necessity (through the semantically non-transparent auxiliar habēbam). In the second stage, obligation in the past tense changed into an exponent of relative posteriority, epistemic hypothesis, quotation and inference, thus subjectively evoking the temporal, modal and evidential components of the ground. "is shiC can also be observed on the formal level, with habēbam first becoming the auxiliary (h)ía and then merging with the fully semantic verb and becoming the suffix -ía. In terms of subjectification, the development of the Czech conditional is less transparent (this is also due to less evidence of its original functions). It can be concluded that the original temporal function of the pluperfect indicative is practically absent in the present-day functions of zpíval bych. However, the Czech conditional (specifically, its formal exponent -lby) can be defined as an extremely non-transparent (and thus extremely subjective) grounding element. "rough the conditional form, the verb meaning reflects different components of the ground, some of which (despite the different historical development of the Czech form) are analogical with the components evoked by the Spanish and English conditional. Given the non-temporal nature of the Czech conditional, its functions are primarily modal and evidential. However, the extent to which the functions of the Czech conditional are analogous to those of cantaría and would is a partial topic of the analyses in Chapter 5. "e la#er may be a means of pointing to the partial independence between subjectivity and subjectification, i.e. to the fact that even two diachronically completely different forms may exhibit similar types of subjective meanings in a synchronic perspective. 4. analysis methodology 52 4.1 elements of the graphical representation "e analysis follows the methodology presented in Kratochvílová (2018a; 2019). "e basic starting point is the ground in the sense of Langacker (see Chapter 2). As stated in Kratochvílová (2018a; 2019), for a comprehensive analysis of the functions of a particular verb form, it is necessary to define the individual ground components and their subsequent implicit (subjective) presence in the verbal form, hence in the u#erance. "us, in the graphical representations, I depict the initial communication situation as captured in Figure 1. I define the constituents of the ground as follows. I understand Ground (G) as the actual communication situation in which the speaker (S) and the addressee (A) find themselves. Within the ground, I distinguish between an u#erance and its pragmatic dimension (represented by the arrows between S and A), and the complete communication situation. "e communication situation contains all the u#erances that have been formulated within it so far and has a temporal and spatial extent, corresponding to the duration of the verbal interaction and the se#ing in which it unfolds. "e communication situation and its temporal delimitation are represented by the line delimiting the ground. "e communication situation content, i.e. elements that are known and accessible to the speaker and addressee, is then represented by the do#ed background. As described in detail in Kratochvílová (2018a; 2019), this definition of ground constituents also allows their identification with the TME categories. "e temporal deFigure 1. Ground. 53 4. analysis methodology limitation of the ground is the basis for the category of time and the definition of what is understood as absolute simultaneity within a particular communication situation, i.e. the speaker’s here and now. "e basis for the category of modality is the role of the speaker within the communication situation and his/her way of presenting the verb meaning in relation to reality. In my understanding, S can be defined not only as the physical person of the actual speaker but also as his/her perception, thinking, way of grasping reality and transforming it into concrete u#erances. At the same time, within a real communication situation, there is usually a regular alternation of the roles of the speaker – addressee(s), i.e. the role of the addressee also has its modal dimension and represents the thinking of the person who pronounced the u#erance immediately preceding the speaker’s u#erance. Finally, the evidential element of the ground can be identified with all the previous content of the communication and the elements that are accessible to the speaker and the addressee in a given communication situation. "us, in the graphical representation, evidential components correspond to the background of G. "e initial ground model can be used to represent the function of specific verb forms and their relationship to G. "e premise for this representation is the fact that the different uses of each verb form do not equally represent all ground components (then there would be no difference between them). To illustrate how the proposed model works with concrete verbal forms, I provide the below examples of the representation of basic verb tenses: present tense, simple past tense, pretérito perfecto / present perfect, future tense, pluperfect. "ese are largely simplified examples, working with only one illustrative use for each verb form and not taking into account more complex dislocated uses (for a comprehensive analysis of all uses of the Spanish present and future tense, refer to Kratochvílová 2018a; 2019). "e aim is primarily to show the basic functioning of the proposed model and to define its fundamental elements that will be subsequently used to analyse the conditional uses in Chapter 5. 4.1.1 present tense To represent the basic characteristic of a verb in the present tense and its relation to the ground, I use the example sentence (45). (45) Clara estábe-prs.3sg en Londres. Klára jebe-prs.3sg v Londýně. Clare is in London. "e representation of the meaning of “be in London” for the given context is captured in Figure 2. 54 "e basic use of the present tense subjectively reflects the temporal boundary of the ground, the verb meaning being in the relationship of at least partial simultaneity with the communication situation. "us, the temporal delimitation of the ground (in the graphical representation represented by its boundary line) is the primary element that will be subjectively reflected in the verb meaning. To depict the underlying temporal relations of anteriority, simultaneity and posteriority, I use a simplified two-dimensional representation following a leC-to-right direction, as in Kratochvílová (2019): elements situated to the leC of G temporally precede the communication situation, elements situated to the right of G are subsequent to the moment of speech. As noted in Kratochvílová (2018a), the present tense rarely denotes events, states or processes entirely coinciding with the temporal delineation of the communication situation, these oCen begin in the past and can continue in the future. In (45), the temporal extension of “be in London” is unlikely to begin and end with the communication situation. To represent (partial) temporal simultaneity with the communication situation, I locate the verb meaning below G in Figure 2. In the case of the present tense, the temporal delimitation of the ground is a means to partially orient the verb meaning in terms of tense (it is not entirely subsequent or entirely antecedent to G). A more specific temporal delimitation is determined by the relation of the verb meaning to the evidential element of the ground, i.e. whether the expressed verb meaning takes place within or outside the range of direct sensory perception of the speaker and the addressee. "us, the second element which is subjectively present in the present tense form is the content of the previous communication situation and the elements accessible to the speaker and the addressee. In this way, a simplified G1΄ containing G1 elements that primarily implicitly reflect in the verb meaning is created. "e meaning of “be in London” is then directly related to the initial ground. "e temporal and evidential elements of the ground are implicitly present in the form está/is/je and through this connection the verb meaning can be interpreted as partially simultaneous with the moment of speech. Figure 2. Present tense. 55 4. analysis methodology 4.1.2 past tense "e use of past tense is represented by (46) and graphically represented in Figure 3. (46) Clara estuvobe-pst.3sg en Londres (el mes pasado). Klára bylabe-pst.3sg (před měsícem) v Londýně. Clare was in London (a month ago). Figure 3. Past tense. "e verb meaning is again directly related to the ground. "e main component that is subjectively invoked is the temporal orientation in relation to the actual communication situation, i.e. the expression of anteriority. Unlike with the present tense, the evidential element does not play a crucial role. "us, G1΄, in this case, reflects only the G temporal boundary, with emphasis on the beginning of the communication situation, which the verb meaning precedes. 4.1.3 pretérito perfecto / present perfect "e basic use of the compound past tense, referred to as pretérito perfecto in the Spanish tradition and present perfect in English, is represented by (47). In Czech, this type of the compound past tense does not exist. "e graphical representation is displayed in Figure 4. (47) Clara ha estadobe-pst.prf.3sg (varias veces) en Londres. Clare has been to London (several times). Figure 4. Pretérito perfecto / Present perfect. 56 "e meaning of “be in London”, is again located in the past; G1΄ thus reflects the G1 temporal delimitation with emphasis on its beginning. However, unlike with the simple past tense, the verb meaning is construed as relevant to, or interfering with, the current communication situation. "us, G1΄ also reflects the G1 evidential element, which is then subjectively reflected in the verb meaning. It is through the evidential component that the verb meaning is put in relation with the communication situation. 4.1.4 future tense To represent absolute posteriority with respect to the moment of speech I use the illustrative example (48). "e graphical representation is captured in Figure 5. (48) Clara estarábe-fut.3sg en Londres (el mes que viene). Klára budebe-fut.3sg v Londýně (příští měsíc). Clare will be in London (next month). Figure 5. Future tense. As I argued in Chapter 3 and in Kratochvílová (2019), expressing posteriority is not a pure mirror image of expressing past events. In addition to the temporal orientation of the verb meaning beyond the moment of speech, a modal-evidential element is also essential for formulating a prediction about the future. "e meaning of (48) can be paraphrased as “given all the information currently available, which I as the speaker take into account, I formulate the hypothesis that Clare will be in London in the future”. "us, the verb meaning in this case subjectively reflects not only the temporal delimitation of the ground, with emphasis on the moment of its termination, but also its evidential component and the speaker, as the person who considers the evidential element in question and formulates a prospective inference on its basis. 57 4. analysis methodology 4.1.5 pluperfect Finally, I briefly present how the proposed representation method captures relative tenses. As an example, I represent the basic use of the pluperfect as it is encountered in Spanish and English (contemporary Czech does not use the pluperfect and expresses relative preterit with the simple past tense) and shown in (49). "e graphical representation is captured in Figure 6. (49) (Antes de ir a París,) Clara había estadobe-plup.3sg en Londres. (Než odjela do Paříže,) bylabe-pst.3sg Klára v Londýně. (Before going to Paris,) Clare had been in London. Figure 6. Pluperfect. As stated in Chapter 2.3.1, there is a fundamental difference between absolute and relative tenses in terms of their relationship to the ground. While absolute tenses are directly related to the current communication situation, relative tenses imply the existence of a secondary ground, which I refer to as G2. G2 can never be entirely analogous to G1. "e complex G1 contains all the elements accessible to the speaker and the addressee at the moment of speech and their mutual interaction. In contrast, G2 is more schematic and its content (i.e. the evidential component) is only implied at or is entirely implicit. In (49), G2 can be defined as the moment when Clare went to Paris. In the graphic representation, this difference is captured by a different G1 and G2 background. G2, obviously, also does not contain the speaker and the addressee and their communication, which takes place only in the present moment. A verb meaning expressed in a relative tense is in direct relation to the secondary ground, implicitly reflecting some of its components. In the case of the pluperfect, it is the G2 temporal boundary, with the emphasis on its beginning, which the verb meaning precedes. However, with a higher degree of subjectivity, the verb meaning also reflects the relationship between G1 and G2, which in this case is also a relation of temporal antecedence. "erefore, the meaning of “be in London”, in this case, can be viewed as preceding a moment in the past implicitly construed as G2, which also precedes G1, i.e. the speaker’s here and now. 64 4.2.4 method of presenting examples from the corpus In the following chapters, the analysed concordance is used to illustrate the different types of conditionals I distinguish. "e examples given for each language always come from an original text. Translations are given below in single quotes. If the text comes from the InterCorp and its official translation corresponds in structure to the source language, I use the translation provided by the corpus (in this case, the translator’s name is included in the description below the language sample). If the official translation does not correspond to the original because it changes the structure of the original sentence or its meaning, I use my own translation (in this case, I use “author” as the translator). 5. typology of conditional uses 66 5.1 type 1: hypothetical conditional Type 1 is the most frequent and probably best corresponds to our intuitive understanding of conditioning. Conditionals labelled as Type 1 present the verb meaning as theoretically possible if a particular condition is fulfilled, with the probability of its realisation varying depending on the subtype. 5.1.1 1a explicit condition/concession expressed byafinite clause Type 1A corresponds to the common understanding of the second type of conditional sentence, where in the protasis, we state an explicit condition for the realisation of the verb meaning represented in the apodosis. Typically, in Spanish, we encounter the imperfect subjunctive in the protasis; in English, the subjunctive/past tense; in Czech, the conditional:30 (50), (51), (51). "e verbal expression of the condition/concession appears in italics in the examples. (50) Sp Si pudieraipfv.sbjv empezar de nuevo, sería una madre muy diferente… ‘If only she could start over; she would be a very different mother.’ ‘Kdybycond Rose mohlacond začít znovu od začátku, byla by zcela jinou matkou…’ InterCorp. Isabel Allende – La hija de la fortuna. English translation: Margaret Sayers Peden. Czech translation: Monika Baďurová. (51) En Well, sir, if I could grow apples like that, I would call myself a gardener. 30 As stated in Chapter 3.3.2, Ianalysed only Czech conditionals appearing in the apodoses. "e Czech protasis conditional is congruential. 67 5. typology of conditional uses ‘Bien, señor, si pudieseipfv.sbjv cultivar esas manzanas, me consideraría entonces un jardinero.’ ‘Teda, pane, kdybych umělcond vypěstovat takový jablka, to bych si říkal pan zahradník.’ InterCorp. J. R. R. Tolkien – $e Fellowship of the Ring. Spanish translation: Luis Domènech. Czech translation: Stanislava Pošustová. (52) Cz Ostatně prázdniny končí a oba milenci zjišťují, že by jim bylo smutno, kdybycond se celý rok nevidělicond. ‘Por lo demás, las vacaciones están a punto de acabar y los dos amantes comprueban que estarían tristes si no se viesenipfv.sbjv durante todo el año.’ ‘ACer all, the holidays are over and the two lovers find that they would be sad if they did not see each other for a whole year.’ InterCorp. Milan Kundera – Kniha smíchu a zapomnění. Spanish translation: Fernando de Valenzuela. English translation: author. If the speaker wishes to present the protasis’ proposition as more likely, both for Spanish and English, the indicative in the main clause can be used as well, see (53), (54). In Czech, combining the present or future indicative in the protasis with the conditional in the apodosis is possible in these cases. No such occurrence appeared in the analysed concordance but for the sake of illustration, I present the Czech translations of (53) and (54), preserving the structure of the original. (53) Sp […] ambos compartían una seria preocupación […] por lo que pasaría si el tsunami no esprs.ind contenido. ‘[…] both shared a serious concern […] about what would happen if the tsunami is not contained.’ ‘[…] oba se velmi obávali, […] co by se stalo, jestli se tsunami nezastavífut.ind.’ AHM. hitsuzen.superforo.net. English and Czech translation: author. (54) En If he catches a fox he would say it was an elephant. ‘Si cazaprs.ind un zorro, diría que era un elefante’. ‘Když chytífut.ind lišku, řekl by, že to byl slon.’ InterCorp. Ernest Hemingway – For Whom the Bell Tolls. Spanish and Czech translation: author. "e likelihood of realisation is not solely dependent on the grammatical structure of the protasis but also on its temporal orientation. "e apodosis will be understood as counterfactual if the protasis is clearly oriented towards the present or the past. With prospective or atemporal orientation, the realisation is not excluded and depends on the possibilities of the world in which we live. 68 "e examples (50), (51), (52) thus represent a range in this respect. Examples (50) and (51) can be characterised as atemporal; example (52) is prospective. "e possibility of actual realisation of the apodosis is practically null in (50), but, in the future, it is not excluded in (51) and (52). "is is not due to the speaker’s a#itude, but to the nature of protasis’ meaning in relation to reality. Under normal conditions, it is impossible to turn back time and start over, implying the non-factuality of (50).31 On the other hand, (51) implies that the speaker does not know how to grow such apples at the present moment, but he might learn it in the future. Finally, the purely prospective orientation of (52) does not imply counterfactuality at all, and the process expressed in the apodosis bears no clear relation to the current ground. "e graphical representation of Type 1A is shown in Figure 7. As stated in Chapter 4.1.6, when representing each conditional type, I work with two grounds. "e first (G1) corresponds to the communication situation in which the speaker and the addressee find themselves. "e second ground (G2) is an explicitly (objectively) or implicitly (subjectively) construed basis on which the conditional depends. G2 is always related to some aspects of G1, which consequently are highly subjectively present in the conditional meaning. In Type 1A, G2 is always explicitly ex31 If we understood “starting over” not in the sense of “turning back the time”, but in the sense of “having asecond child”, “becoming amother for the second time”, the prospective realisation in (50) would become possible. Figure 7. Type 1A. 69 5. typology of conditional uses pressed and corresponds to the protasis of the conditional clause. "e protasis contains a grounded verb that subjectively reflects the speaker’s epistemic stance (higher probability if construed through the indicative, lower probability if construed through the subjunctive / past tense / conditional). As stated above, the assessment of the extent to which it is possible/probable that the condition expressed in the protasis will be fulfilled does not depend solely on the verbal mood the speaker chooses when formulating it. Relevant elements also include the temporal anchoring in relation to G1 and, more generally, the nature of the world we live in and the possibilities it offers. "us, in addition to the speaker, G2 is also related to the G1 evidential component and its temporal delimitation. "is is represented by the smaller copy of G1 (G1΄), which includes only these relevant components establishing the connection between G1 and G2. In Type A1, G2 is never construed as actually existing (represented by the dashed line); it is always a hypothetical or counterfactual base. At the same time, G2 is more schematic than G1: in Type 1A, G2 is defined only through the conditional protasis (IF + verb content). In the graphical representation, this is expressed by the lighter background of G2 (compared to G1). "e conditional meaning depends entirely on G2, i.e. it is construed as relevant only in relation to the condition expressed in the protasis. Of course, in practice, it could also be theoretically fulfilled under other conditions. Nevertheless, in my understanding, the function of the conditional is to present a proposition as inherently connected to a secondary ground. In other words, through the conditional, it is possible to separate a proposition from G1 and avoid anchoring it in the communication situation (whether in terms of its temporal orientation with respect to G1 or in terms of the proposition’s modal or evidential status). "e dependency relationship between the conditional meaning and G2 is represented by the arrow connecting them (the conditional meaning is always represented as the word COND in a circle). "e fact that the realisation of the conditional meaning depends entirely on whether the condition expressed through the protasis (i.e. G2) is fulfilled is represented through a smaller copy of G2 (G2΄) placed next to this arrow. However, in this case, G2΄ is delimited by a solid line, which symbolises that the non-hypothetical status of G2 is the condition for the conditional meaning to become relevant. Given that the conditional meaning depends entirely on the hypothetical G2, its epistemic status is uncertain and is represented by the dashed line surrounding COND. Applying this interpretation to the Spanish model sentence Si tuviera dinero, me iría de vacaciones (‘If I had money, I would go on holiday’) corresponding to Type 1A, we arrive at the following paraphrase of the meaning of me iría (‘I would go’). "e meaning of “go” is not anchored in relation to the communication situation in which the speaker and the addressee(s) currently find themselves. It is not temporally oriented with respect to it, nor is it presented as factual or non-factual. “Go” is anchored in G2, which the speaker in this case explicitly defines as a highly schematic situation whose only defining characteristic is “the speaker has money”. In relation to G1, G2 is presented as hypothetical, i.e. not excluded in the future in this case, but highly im- 70 probable in the present. "e improbability is implicitly expressed through tuviera in the imperfect subjunctive (subjective construing of the speaker and his/her epistemic stance towards G2). "e open possibility of realisation is given by the possibilities of the world we live in, where it is not excluded to gain money (subjective construing of the evidential element of the communication situation). It is further defined temporally in the sense that “have money” is unrealistic at the moment of speaking but possible in the future (subjective construing of the temporal delimitation of the communication situation). In English, the model sentence If I had money, I would go on holiday can be paraphrased in an analogical way. "e Czech variant Kdybych měla peníze, jela bych na dovolenou, differs from the Spanish and the English ones by also allowing an anteriority interpretation. Given that the past conditional is generally substituted by the simple form in nowadays Czech, the sentence can be translated both as ‘If I had money, I would go on holiday’ or ‘If I had had money, I would have gone on holiday’, thus allowing also an interpretation in terms of “hypothetical situation in the past”. In an exhaustive analysis of Spanish conditional sentences with the formula “Si + imperfect subjunctive…, conditional”, Veiga (1991, 143–155) formulates questions concerning whether this type of condition implies an implicit negation of the verb meaning. "e author concludes that the most frequent interpretation of this clausal type would be negación implícita presente e improbabilidad futura (‘implicit negation in the present and improbability in the future’). In other words, the conditional meaning directed towards the future is usually understood as highly improbable; the conditional meaning related to the present is understood as implicitly negated: Si ahora tuviera dinero, me iría de vacaciones (‘If I had money now, I would go on holiday’) → I do not have money → I am not going on holiday. // Si el año que viene tuviera dinero, me iría de vacaciones (‘If I had money the next year, I would go on holiday’) → I do not know if I will have money the next year, but I do not think so → I do not know if I will go on holiday the next year, but I do not think so. However, Veiga (1991) eventually points out that a conditional construction with the imperfect subjunctive and a present-oriented conditional need not imply non-factuality in all circumstances. In this context, Veiga (1991, 151) mentions the construction Creo que iban a salir, pero no sé si lo habrán hecho. Si estuvieran en casa, podríamos hacerles una visita. (‘I think they were going to go out, but I don’t know if they have. If they were at home, we could pay them a visit’). Temporally, this sentence is clearly oriented towards the present moment, but the factuality of “be at home” and “pay a visit” is not excluded and is only uncertain. I agree with Veiga that the temporal orientation (however oCen it plays a prominent role in defining the possibilities of realising the conditional meaning) is not the only element that is relevant in interpreting Type 1A. Note that in the example proposed by Veiga, the initial situation is explicitly mentioned: creo que iban a salir, pero no sé si lo habrán hecho, which can be considered as information forming part of the communication situation (whether it will indeed be explicitly formulated or 71 5. typology of conditional uses understood as arising from the context and known to the addressee and the speaker). It is this information in this particular context that subsequently forms the G1΄ background, which I schematically referred to above as “the possibilities of the world we live in”. "e very question of whether the conditional meaning is implicitly negated in this type of construction (or under what conditions) becomes meaningless in the approach proposed in this monograph. "e starting point for interpreting the conditional here is the fact that it is not directly related to G1, and thus to the actual reality of the speaker and the addressee. A verb meaning not anchored in reality cannot, by its very nature, be true or false (for this dichotomy implies a comparison of the verb meaning with the actual state of affairs, i.e. with G1). "e conditional meaning is, in my understanding, a dependent meaning, subject to the G2 defining condition. "is condition is construed in a certain relation to G1 (this relation being defined in G1΄), but even this initial condition is not construed in terms of affirmation/negation or true/false, it merely relates to G1 in some way. "e assessment of this relation always depends on the particular situation and the particular definitional characteristics of this condition, i.e. its relation to the currently available evidential element of G1. 5.1.2 1b explicit condition/concession not expressed by afinite clause "e broadly conceived Type 1B includes all cases in which the condition for validating the conditional meaning was explicitly present in the text, but was not expressed through a finite clause, thus not being overtly modalised. In all the languages under scrutiny, the condition/concession can be expressed by a non-finite verbal form (55), an adverbial expression of place or time (56), as well as by a noun or adjective (57). As with Type 1A, these expressions appear in italics in the examples. (55) Sp Porque dejarinf de fumar sería para ti como matar a un ser querido. ‘Because for you, qui%ing smoking would be like killing someone you love.’ ‘Poněvadž přestatinf kouřit by pro tebe bylo jako zabít milovaného člověka.’ InterCorp. Gabriel García Márquez – Vivir para contarla. English translation: Edith Grossman. Czech translation: Vladimír Medek. (56) En In a sensible world, industrial waste would not be banned but put to good use. ‘En un mundo sensato, los desechos industriales no serían proscritos, sino aprovechados.’ ‘V rozumném světě by průmyslový odpad nebyl zakazován, ale dobře využíván.’ InterCorp. James Ephraim Lovelock – Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Spanish translation: Alberto Jiménez Rioja. Czech translation: author. 72 (57) Cz Co by byla postava Hamleta bez Elsinorského zámku, bez Ofelie, bez všech konkrétních situací, jimiž prochází, čím by byla bez textu své role, čím by byla abstrahována od toho všeho? ‘¿Qué sería la figura de Hamlet sin el castillo de Elsinor, sin Ofelia, sin todas las situaciones concretas por las que pasa, qué sería sin el texto de su papel, qué sería haciendo abstracción de todo eso?’ ‘What would Hamlet be without the castle at Elsinore, without Ophelia, without all the concrete situations he goes through, what would he be without the text of his part?’ InterCorp. Milan Kundera – Žert. Spanish translation: Fernando de Valenzuela. English translation: David Hamblyn and Oliver Stallybrass. Conditions expressed through adverbials such as never, under no conditions etc. also belong to Type 1B, see (58), since these adverbials construe the secondary ground in a way analogous to, for example, in a sensible world in (56). (58) Sp Yo también tengo miedo, pero no me perdería esto por nada. ‘I ’m afraid, too, but I wouldn’t miss this for anything.’ ‘Já mám taky nahnáno, ale za nic na světě bych o to nechtěl přijít.’ InterCorp. Isabel Allende – Eva Luna. English translation: Margaret Sayers Peden. Czech translation: Alena Jurionová. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 8. Figure 8. Type 1B. 73 5. typology of conditional uses "e graphical representation of Type 1B is largely analogous to Type 1A. "e difference lies only in a different way of defining the initial condition (G2), on which the conditional meaning depends. Given that the condition does not contain a grounded verb, the (non-)existence of G2 is determined purely by the semantics of the chosen conditional/concessive expression and its (in-)compatibility with the real world. "e assessment of this (in-)compatibility is neither explicitly nor implicitly present. Such a relationship between G1 and G2 is represented by the missing S next to the arrow connecting the grounds (in contrast to Type 1A). G1΄ to the leC of the arrow represents that our knowledge of the world is relevant for assessing the relationship between G1 and G2. In addition, the temporal anchoring of G1 can also become relevant in assessing G2 (a condition situated in the future is again more likely to be fulfilled). In this case, the defining characteristic of G2 is more schematic than in Type 1A. "e graphical representation captures this through the lighter background of G2 compared to Type 1A. "e relationship between the conditional meaning (COND) and G2 is, nevertheless, the same as for Type 1A: G2 becoming factual is the prerequisite for the realisation of the conditional meaning (G2΄ bounded by a solid line, in Figure 8). "e epistemic status of the conditional meaning is not specified in any way (COND surrounded by a dashed line). 5.1.3 1c progressive development of avirtual scenario Type 1C corresponds to situations where the speaker does not merely express a binary condition/concession, but once a hypothetical space is created, (s)he gradually builds an entirely virtual scenario fully anchored in G2. "e use of the conditional here is also possible in all the languages under scrutiny. In (59), (60), (61), the initial condition giving rise to G2 appears in italics. (59) Sp Se me ocurre que en vista de que no puedo ir a Chile como su mayordomo, tal vez no sería del todo una mala idea que fuera como su marido. […] No pretendo, por supuesto, ejercer la función de esposo en el aspecto sentimental. Tampoco aspiro a su fortuna, que estaría totalmente a salvo, para eso tomaría usted las medidas legales pertinentes. Mi papel junto a usted sería prácticamente el mismo: ayudarla en todo lo que pueda con la máxima discreción. ‘Myslím, že když nemohu jet do Chile jako váš majordomus, nebyl by tak špatný nápad jet tam jako váš manžel. […] Nemám samozřejmě v úmyslu být vaším manželem se vším všudy. Nejde mi ani o váš majetek, ten bude zcela v bezpečí, o to se přece postaráte náležitými právními opatřeními. Moje role by byla v podstatě stejná jako dosud; pomáhal bych vám se vším, s čím bych mohl, a naprosto diskrétně.’ 80 "e first part of Table 9 (Row I) captures Type 1 as a whole, Rows III–VII refer to the individual subtypes. "e results show that Type 1 is the most frequent overall. "e absolute frequency for all languages analysed was 903 occurrences (IIb), which corresponds to approximately 50% for the complete sample of 1,800 occurrences (IIc). However, this is influenced by the high frequency of this type in Czech, where it accounted for 72.3% (IIi) of all conditional types, in contrast to Spanish, where it reaches only 35% (IIg), and English, where this interpretation was chosen for 43% of occurrences (IIh). "e distribution of this type is relatively balanced across the different register types of the corpus (IIj–m). When analysing Type 1 distribution across registers, it is important to remember that out of 1,800 results, 300 come from the parallel corpus, while the other corpora have only 100 occurrences each. "us, for be#er comparison, Column l contains two numbers: the first corresponds to the absolute frequency type in the parallel corpus; the number in parenthesis shows the absolute frequency divided by three to allow for a be#er comparison to the frequencies in Columns k–m. Type 1C appears to be the most frequent Type 1 subtype in all languages (VIg–i), which may be influenced to some extent by the higher frequency of fiction texts in the corpus. However, the relatively high frequency of this subtype in the oral corpus (VIl) seems surprising. Oppositely, the low frequency of Type 1B in the oral subcorpus (Vl) is also unexpected. 5.2 type 2: temporal conditional Type 2, which I call the temporal conditional, includes all uses of cantaría and would through which the speaker expresses relative posteriority. "is use results from the relationship between the Spanish and English conditional and the future tense grammatical exponents (i.e. cantaré and will). As mentioned in Chapter 3.3, the Czech conditional does not display a formal relationship with the future tense and the opposition between relative and absolute posteriority is not formally marked in Czech (both being expressed through the budu zpívat paradigm whose interpretation depends on the context). "is means that Type 2 is not represented for Czech and only Spanish and English occurrences will be analysed in this chapter. 5.2.1 2a future-of-the-past: sequence of tenses Type 2A corresponds to the prototypical use of the temporal conditional within the sequence of tenses, where cantaría substitutes cantaré and would substitutes will, see (65). 81 5. typology of conditional uses (65) María dice que cantará. → María dijo que cantaría. Mary says she will sing. → Mary said she would sing. In the corpus analysis, I marked as 2A the following uses of the conditional: a) cases where relative posteriority is expressed within a subordinate clause syntactically dependent on a clause in the past tense (66), (67), b) cases where relative posteriority is expressed in the main clause whose content is directly related to another past tense clause (68), (69). (66) Sp Confirmó también que el negocio tomaría años […]. ‘He also confirmed that the enterprise would take years […].’ InterCorp. Isabel Allende – Retrato en sepia. English translation: Margaret Sayers Peden. (67) En "ere was li#le hope that it would weigh for much in the balance of political life until then. ‘Hasta entonces, había pocas esperanzas de que tuviera mucho peso en la vida política.’ BNC Academic.33 BNC: A64. W_ac_polit_law_edu. Roger Pethybridge – One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forward. Spanish translation: author. (68) Sp Vencido por el entusiasmo de su mujer, José Arcadio Buendía puso entonces una condición: Rebeca, que era la correspondida, se casaría con Pietro Crespi. ‘Conquered by his wife’s enthusiasm, José Arcadio Buendía then laid down one condition: Rebeca, who was the one he wanted, would marry Pietro Crespi.’ InterCorp. Gabriel García Márquez – Cien años de soledad. English translation: Gregory Rabassa. (69) En I wished to God it was over though. Maybe it would finish this summer. Maybe the Austrians would crack. ‘Dios sabe que deseaba que terminara. Quizá ocurriría este verano. Tal vez los austriacos cedieran.’ InterCorp. Ernest Hemingway – A Farewell to Arms. Spanish translation: Juana M. Horta and Joaquín Horta. 33 Examples of usage taken from the British National Corpus (BNC) were obtained under the terms of the BNCEnd User Licence. Copyright in the individual texts cited resides with the original IPR holders. For information andlicensing conditions relating to the BNC, please see the web site at h#p://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. 82 "e difference between Type 2A and Type 1 (including all its subtypes) can be defined in terms of the presence/absence of G2 temporal anchoring. However, the notion of open possibility and hypotheticality that I defined as intuitively closest to our understanding of the conditional meaning is not lost in Type 2A. "e conditional meaning here is temporally relatively profiled (subsequent to a clearly defined moment in the past), unlike Type 1, but in terms of actual realisation, once again, undefined, which allows its possible subsequent negation, as in (70). (70) También dijo que nos lo enviaría, pero no lo hizo. ‘He also said he’d send it to us, but he didn’t.’ InterCorp. Javier Cercas – Soldados de Salamina. English translation: Anne McLean. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 11. Figure 11. Type 2A. "e graphical representation again exploits the elements used to represent hypothetical Types 1 in Chapter 5.1. G1, as a schematic representation of the communication situation and its features, remains unchanged. However, the nature of G2 differs from Type 1. In the case of the hypothetical conditional, G2 was characterised as a virtual space, which was indicated by its dashed boundary line. "e realisation of the conditional meaning depended on the condition defining G2 being fulfilled (represented by the change of the dashed line into a solid one in G2΄), this results in an uncertain epistemic status of the conditional meaning. With the temporal conditional, G2 is an existing space that is temporally oriented in relation to G1. G2 is situated in the past and is thus located to the leC of G1. "e relationship between G1 and G2 is again captured in the reduced and simplified G1΄. In G1΄, the boundary line representing the beginning of the current communication situation is emphasised, thus illustrating that the G1 temporal delimitation is relevant for establishing the relationship between the two grounds. Since G2 corresponds to an actual period in the past, it is not a highly schematic situation as in Types 1A, 1B and 1D. G2 is fully accessible to the speaker and addressee and, theoretically, can be described in detail. Figure 11 captures this through 83 5. typology of conditional uses a finely defined background in G2, which represents the complex nature of these elements. G2 functions here not as a theoretical prerequisite for the conditional meaning to become factual, but as an information package located in the past to which the conditional meaning directly relates. "us, the ground is not hypothetical but evidential. To understand the relationship between G2 and the conditional meaning, we need to return to the basic characteristics of relative posteriority as relative prospective inference. As stated in Chapter 3.1.3, prospective inference means that some elements of the relevant ground lead to the assumption that an event will take place in the future. When applied to the temporal use of the conditional, this initial consideration allows us to define the relation between G2 and the conditional as follows: the conditional meaning is posterior to G2, with G2 functioning here as the source of information based on which the conditional meaning was presumed to subsequently occur in the past. "e modal element is reduced since the assumption regarding the probable subsequent state-of-affairs cannot be a#ributed to the G1 speaker.34 In the graphical representation, this relation is again represented by G2΄ reflecting both the temporal limits of G2 (the emphasis on posteriority with respect to this moment in the past) and its evidential elements, which are the source of the assumption that the conditioning meaning will be fulfilled. "us, unlike with the hypothetical conditional (Type 1), the relationship between COND and G2 is not defined as a dependency relationship in the sense of ‘fulfilling a particular condition defined as G2 gives factuality to the conditional meaning’. With Type 2, the conditional meaning is construed as inferentially arising from a non-hypothetical G2. Nevertheless, this inference is profiled only in relation to G2, which is reflected in the ambiguous epistemic status of the conditional meaning relative to G1. Whereas in Type 1 the conditioning meaning is always epistemically unspecified (represented by the single dashed line surrounding COND), in Type 2A it is inferentially presupposed, i.e. relatively probable but not fully confirmed from the G1 perspective. In the graphical representation, this is indicated by the double dashed line surrounding COND. "e application of the above relation to an example sentence such as Hace una semana, Juan me prometió que escribiría una carta a sus padres (‘A week ago, Juan promised me he would write a le#er to his parents’) results in the following interpretation. "e conditional escribiría (‘would write’) implies the existence of a G2 on which the TME characteristics of “write” depend. G2 is antecedent to G1 (implicit assessment of a situation taking place before the moment of speech), with “write” being posterior to G2. From the perspective of the given period of past referred to here as G2 (in this case, it is situated a week before the moment of speech), according to the speaker, based on the information available at that moment, it is highly probable that Juan will later write a le#er to his parents (in this particular case, prospective inference follows on 34 It can be presented as aresult of the reasoning of another person or it can be a#ributed to the speaker’spast self. 84 from the fact that Juan promises to do so). However, the epistemic status of “write” with respect to G1 is unstated (the conditional meaning does not express whether Juan wrote the le#er or not). 5.2.2 2b double viewpoint I refer to cases where the conditional meaning expresses relative posteriority with the verb meaning being simultaneously confirmed from the perspective of the moment of speech as Type 2B, see (71) and (72). (71) Sp En esa misma posición serían sorprendidos muchos años después, para desdicha de los dos, y no les alcanzaría la vida para pagarlo. ‘Many years later, they would be found in the same position, and a whole lifetime would not be long enough for their atonement.’ InterCorp. Isabel Allende – La casa de los espíritus. English translation: Magda Bogin. (72) En In 2009 I held the first fabulousplaces.co.uk Food & GiC event… li#le did I know how popular they would become! ‘En 2009 organicé el primer evento de fabulousplaces.co.uk Food & GiC… ¡no me imaginaba lo populares que se volverían!’ AAM. fabulousplaces.co.uk. Spanish translation: author. Within the limited context provided by the corpus excerpts, it was sometimes difficult to determine whether the speaker presents the verb meaning only as posterior from the perspective of the past (Type 2A) or also as factual, from the perspective of the moment of speech (Type 2B). Both interpretations would be possible, for example, in (73): (73) En "en at last he turned to the road in front and took a few steps: the heaviest and the most reluctant he had ever taken. Only a few steps; and now only a few more and he would be going down and would never see that high place again. ‘Luego, por fin, se volvió hacia el camino que se extendía ante él y avanzó unos pocos pasos: los más pesados y más penosos que hubiera dado alguna vez. Apenas unos pocos pasos; y ahora sólo unos pocos más, y luego descendería y ya nunca más volvería a ver aquellas alturas.’ InterCorp. J. R. R. Tolkien – $e Two Towers. Spanish translation: Matilde Holde and Luis Domènech. 85 5. typology of conditional uses To avoid any misinterpretations, I marked as 2B only those cases where there was no doubt that the conditional meaning actually took place in the past (in a moment posterior to G2 and anterior to G1). In such cases, the u#erances usually contained a temporal indication determining when this realisation took place, such as muchos años después / many years later in (71). Alternatively, a discrepancy between what the speaker can affirm in the moment of speech and what the subject knew in the past was explicitly expressed, see li%le did I know / poco me imaginaba in (72). "us, ambiguous examples such as (73) were marked as 2A in the classification. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 12. Figure 12. Type 2B. Type 2B differs from Type 2A in the relationship between the conditional meaning and G2. With Type 2B, there is no inferential element connecting G2 and COND since the conditional meaning could not be predicted in the past. "us, in this case, G2 serves only to provide temporal grounding for the conditional meaning (one of relative posteriority). In Figure 12, this is represented by G2΄, which reflects only the temporal delimitation of G2. For the first time, the epistemic status of the conditional meaning is not in dispute; it is presented as actually carried out (COND surrounded by a solid line) with this certainty based on the information available to the speaker in the present, i.e. within G1. "us, the conditional meaning also subjectively reflects the G1 evidential element (as represented in Figure 12 by G1΄ situated above the arrow connecting G2 and COND). If the same verb meaning were expressed in the simple past tense, G2 would be absent from the cognitive representation and the meaning would only be presented as preceding the moment of speech (see Chapter 4.1.2). To be#er illustrate the proposed analysis method, it can be applied to the example (71) En esa misma posición serían sorprendidos muchos años después (‘Many years later, they would be found in the same position’). "e meaning of “be found” can be defined as subsequent to the moment in the past when the subjects were in the position for the first time (subjective representation of the G2 temporal element). "is moment precedes the moment at which the event is narrated (subjective representation of the G1 temporal element). It is also represented as confirmed from the speaker’s current perspective, i.e. the speaker expresses that (s)he knows the 86 subjects were later found in this way (subjective representation of the G1 evidential element). Furthermore, as observed in Chapter 3.2.2, the English conditional can, given the nature of its original dynamic volitive meaning also express relative posteriority determined by the subject’s will. "ese cases are illustrated by the example (74). (74) En He wouldn’t tell her any more. ‘No estaba dispuesto a contarle nada más.’ ‘Víc jí neřekl.’ InterCorp. Nicholas Evans – $e Divide. Spanish translation: Ignacio Gómez Calvo. Czech translation: Dagmar Brejlová. In this case, the Spanish and Czech official translations illustrate the two components of the English meaning. No estaba dispuesto a contarle nada más (literally: ‘He was not willing to tell her any more’) emphasises the modal element (the will of the sentence subject); Víc jí neřekl (literally: ‘He did not tell her any more’) emphasises the temporal element (the action did not occur in the past). "e English would connects the two meanings in the sense that “the absence of the subject’s will to do something resulted in the fact that the action did not occur”. "e cognitive representation of the example (74) would be essentially identical to the other double viewpoint conditionals. Nevertheless, the subject’s will could be represented as the subjective presence of the G2 evidential element in G2΄. In other words, this case is a combination of types 2A and 2B: relative posteriority is represented as actually having taken place from the perspective of the current moment of speech (2B), but at the same time as inferentially arising from G2 (in this case, from the volition manifested by the subject in G2), as is typical of Type 2A. Since my focus is primarily on the Spanish conditional, where the aforementioned additive modal element does not feature, I include these English examples under Type 2B. 5.2.3 2c cyclical conditional "e last subtype of temporal conditional I distinguish corresponds to cases where the speaker, from the G1 perspective, refers to an event that occurred repeatedly in the past. "is use of the conditional is typical of English (see Chapter 3.2.2). In Spanish, it usually corresponds to the so-called imperfecto cíclico (‘cyclical imperfect’, see RAE 2009, § 23.12c–d), as illustrated by (75). (75) En On the eighth day he began to talk aloud instead of whispering, and nothing I could do would moderate his speech. “It is just, O God!” he would say, over and over again. 87 5. typology of conditional uses ‘El octavo día comenzó a hablar en alta voz en lugar de susurrar y nada pude hacer para que moderase el tono. —¡Es justo, oh Dios! —decíapst.ipfv una y otra vez—.’ InterCorp. Herbert George Wells – $e War of the Worlds. Spanish translation: Julio Vacareza. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 13. Given that this type cannot be found in Spanish, I shall comment upon it only briefly. Type 2C is defined as a conditional type with a complex dual perspective. "e verb meaning is construed as inferred in the past (analogously to Type 2A, see G2΄ in Figure 13). "e inference here is based on the frequent repetition, which creates anticipation, i.e. the assumption that the conditional meaning will happen again. "e conditional meaning and its repeated occurrence thus generate a sequence of G2s, where the assumed realisation in the (relative) future is given by the repeated experience with the conditional meaning actually having occurred. At the same time, the verb meaning (analogously to Type 2B, see G1΄ in Figure 12) is presented from a G1 perspective as actually carried out (i.e. the verb meaning that was presupposed to take place in future in G2 is simultaneously confirmed from the G1 perspective).35 5.2.4 statistics "e results shown in Table 10 indicate a high frequency of Type 2 in both Spanish and English (around 40%, IIg–h). "e high frequency of Type 2 in the parallel corpus consisting of fiction texts (IIj) was expected, as was the low frequency in the oral corpus (IIl). "e clear dominance of subtype 2A (IVc) is not surprising either, given the complexity of subtypes 2B and 2C. 35 From the perspective of G1, the G2 inferential element becomes aspectual, which points to an interesting connection between the evidential and the category of aspect/Aktionsart, see also Kratochvílová– Jiménez Juliá (2021). Figure 13. Type 2C. 88 Table 10. Type 2 and its subtypes in the corpus. Row/ Column a b c d e f g h i j k l m I Type Freq ALL % Type / Whole corpus Freq SP Freq EN Freq CZ % Type / SP corpus % Type / EN corpus % Type / CZ corpus Freq Parallel (Freq/3) Freq Araneum Freq Oral Freq Academic II Temporal 501 27.8 246 255 0 41.0 42.5 0.0387 (129)43 25 46 III Subtype Freq ALL % Subtype / Type A Freq SP Freq EN Freq CZ % Subtype / SP Type 1 % Subtype / EN Type 1 % Subtype / CZ Type 1 Freq Parallel (Freq/3) Freq Araneum Freq Oral Freq Academic IV 2A346 69.1 179 167 0 72.8 65.5–273 (91)27 18 28 V2B107 21.4 67 40 0 27.2 15.7–77 (26)14 0 16 VI 2C 48 9.6 0 48 0 0.0 18.8–37 (12) 2 7 2 89 5. typology of conditional uses 5.3 type 3: modal-evidential conditional Type 3 comprises four related conditional uses that can be found in Spanish. "eir common feature is a distinct evidential element, which can be defined as inferential (Types 3A, 3B, 3C) and as quotative (3D). 5.3.1 3a past-tense probabilitive Type 3A corresponds to probabilitive uses of the conditional. "e morphological expression of probability is typical of the Spanish verbal system (see Chapter 3.1.3) with cantaría corresponding to the simple past tense or to the imperfect probabilitive,36 see (76). (76) Sp la gente sale de sus casas a celebrar el año nuevo / y lo quieren hacer ya // de la mano del euro // los que tienen / pagan con ellos // los que no // siguen utilizando la peseta // […] He ido a un cajero esta mañana y y bueno / y no daba no funci vamos no funcionaba / creo que estarían agotados / porque anoche / en frente de mi casa // tengo Ca Madrid eeh y la Caixa / y bueno / y unas colas impresionantes / y entonces yo creo que los han agotado ‘people leave their homes to celebrate the new year / and they want to do it // with the euro // those who have / pay with it // those who don’t // still use the peseta // […] I went to an ATM this morning and well / and it didn’t dispense it didn’t well it didn’t work / I suppose they must have run out of them / because last night / in front of my house // I have Ca Madrid eeh and la Caixa / and well / and there were huge queues / and so I think they’ve run out of them’ CORPES XXI Oral. Llegó el euro: programa especial, 02/01/02, Onda Cero. English translation: author. (76) clearly illustrates the modal-evidential element that accompanies the probabilitive uses of the conditional. "e speaker talks about the first hours aCer introducing the euro in Spain and expresses the assumption that the ATMs had run out of euro notes. "is assumption is based on evidence (the ATM was not working, and long queues had formed in front of it the previous evening). In terms of modality, cantaría here reflects the speaker’s thought process and the subsequent epistemic inference; in terms of evidentiality, it reflects a situation that the speaker witnessed and based on which (s)he draws the inference. "e conditional meaning is also temporally bounded, and it is oriented before the moment of speech (estarían ≈ probablementeprobably estabanbe-pst.ipfv.3pl – ‘probably were’, ‘must have been’). 36 Cantaré expresses probability with reference to present or future, habré cantado can be seen as present perfect or future perfect probabilitive, habría cantado is used as pluperfect probabilitive. 96 in its lack of temporal anchoring since it does not convey anteriority with respect to the moment of speech. Although according to the RAE (2009, §23.15m), this use of the conditional can only be paraphrased in the past or present tense, I define it as atemporal and allowing for the anterior, simultaneous or posterior interpretation. "is is illustrated by (82), where my claim is that cobraría (‘be paidcond’) can be paraphrased using the future tense as supuestamente cobrará (‘will be allegedly paid’). An example of the prospective orientation of this conditional type is also a#ested by Bermúdez (2016, 43). (82) Sp Ya no existen más misterios, el piloto español Fernando Alonso ha firmado un contrato por seis años con la escudería Ferrari, según se ha anunciado en el programa radial “El Larguero”. El asturiano cobraría una suma de 25 millones de euros por temporada. ‘No more mysteries. As announced on the radio programme “El Larguero”, the Spanish racing driver Fernando Alonso has signed a six-year contract with the Ferrari team. "e Asturian driver will allegedly be paid 25 million euros per season.’ AHM. ultimacurva.com. English translation: author. As resulting from Chapter 3.1, this type of conditional has no English or Czech counterpart. However, in reference to the Czech conditional and its possible quotative function, it is worth mentioning observations made by Ševčíková (2009). When analysing the uses of zpíval bych provided by language corpora, the author notes that the Czech conditional oCen appears in contexts where the source of information is explicitly mentioned. Similar occurrences were part of my concordance, see (83) for an example. (83) Cz V současnosti je základní DPH 20 procent a snížená 10 procent. Do té spadají mimo jiné například právě potraviny či léky. Vláda kvůli důchodové reformě uvažuje, že by obě sazby sjednotila na 19 procentech. Podle analytiků by to však zvýšilo inflaci až o dvě procenta. ‘En la actualidad, el IVA básico es del 20 por ciento y el reducido, del 10 por ciento. El reducido incluye, entre otras cosas, alimentos y medicamentos. A causa de la reforma de las pensiones, el Gobierno está estudiando la posibilidad de unificar los dos tipos en el 19 por ciento. Sin embargo, según los analistas, esto aumentaría la inflación hasta un dos por ciento.’ ‘At present, the basic VAT is 20 per cent and the reduced VAT is 10 per cent. "e la#er includes, among other things, food and medicines. Because of the pension reform, the government is considering unifying the two rates at 19 per cent. However, according to some analysts, this would increase inflation by up to two percent.’ ABM. metropole.regiony24.cz. Spanish and English translation: author. I do not dispute the high co-occurrence of zpíval bych with podle (“according to”). However, I agree with Ševčíková (2009) that this does not indicate that the Czech 97 5. typology of conditional uses conditional takes on a quotative meaning. Ševčíková concludes that in these contexts, the conditional expresses the same type of hypotheticality as in sentences without an explicitly stated source of information. "is is proven by (83), which shows that the conditional meaning is construed as part of a larger hypothetical scenario definable as “if the government were to unify VAT at 19 per cent”. It is the existence of a condition on which the conditional depends that I assess as primary here. "us, (83) has been assigned to type 1C in my analysis. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 18. Figure 18. Type 3D. "e first part of the graphical representation of Type 3D is analogous to Type 1D. "e conditional implies a secondary ground with no clear temporal relation to G1. "e relationship between the two grounds is highly schematic and can be defined as a speaker’s a#empt to distance the content of the u#erance from the current moment of speech. In the graphical representation, this is symbolised by the simplified G1΄, which reflects only the speaker’s communicative intention. As in Type 1, G2 is placed below G1 in the representation, symbolising the temporal indefiniteness and possible co-occurrence with the moment of speech. "e difference between Type 3D and Type 1 lies in the nature of G2, which is evidential rather than hypothetical here. "us, the speaker implicitly construes a ground that (s)he presents as actually existing, albeit without further temporal specification. 98 Table 11. Type 3 and its subtypes in the corpus. Row/ Column a b c d e f g h i j k l m I Type Freq ALL % Type / Whole corpus Freq SP Freq EN Freq CZ % Type / SP corpus % Type / EN corpus % Type / CZ corpus Freq Parallel (Freq/3) Freq Araneum Freq Oral Freq Academic II Modal- -evidential 44 2.4 44 0 0 7.3 0.0 0.0 10 (3)10 10 14 III Subtype Freq ALL % Subtype / Type A Freq SP Freq EN Freq CZ % Subtype / SP Type 1 % Subtype / EN Type 1 % Subtype / CZ Type 1 Freq Parallel (Freq/3) Freq Araneum Freq Oral Freq Academic IV 3A 7 15.9 7 0 0 15.9– – 4 (1) 0 3 0 V3B 6 13.6 6 0 0 13.6– – 5 (2) 0 0 1 VI 3C 1 2.3 1 0 0 2.3– – 0 0 1 0 VII 3D30 68.2 30 0 0 68.2– – 1 (0.3)10 6 13 99 5. typology of conditional uses "e conditional meaning then depends entirely on the G2 content, from which it derives. "e conditional meaning is not altogether virtual as in Type 1 since it depends on a non-hypothetical G2. However, G2 is distinct in content from G1 (symbolised by the different background of the two grounds) and the conditional depends only on G2, not on any of the G1 elements that are available to both the speaker and the addressee(s). In (82), this secondary ground is the radio programme El Larguero, its content and the speaker’s interpretation of this content. If any of these elements prove to be false or unreliable, i.e. if G2 is invalidated, the conditional meaning is also invalidated. 5.3.5 statistics Table 11 provides interesting results, especially with regard to the register types in which the modal-evidential conditional appeared in Spanish. Type 3 was most frequently found in the academic subcorpus (IIm), whereas its occurrences in the parallel corpus are comparatively less frequent than in the case of the hypothetical and temporal conditionals (IIj). However, given the relatively small number of results overall, these numbers may be biased by the dominance of the 3D subtype, whose presence in the academic corpus and the corpus of texts originating from the Internet, which may also contain newspaper articles, is not surprising. 5.4 type 4: mitigating conditional Type 4 includes temporally undefined uses of the conditional by which the speaker mitigates the content of an u#erance. 5.4.1 4a tentative conditional In occurrences marked as 4A, the speaker uses the conditional to express uncertainty regarding the validity of the verb meaning. Type 4A shares some features with Type 3D and suggests a gradual transition between Types 3 and 4. Common to both types is that the conditional serves the speaker to express epistemic distance and thus weaken the u#erance informational value. "e two types are also united by the ambiguous temporal interpretation of the conditional, which can only be inferred from the broader context. Type 4A, on the other hand, lacks the hearsay element; epistemic distance results from the speaker’s decision, not from an external source to which the speaker explicitly or implicitly refers. "e pragmatic effect of this epistemic distance may then be to increase the degree of politeness (for example, in sit- 100 uations where the speaker disagrees with the addressee) or to give the impression of the speaker’s modesty. Type 4A can be found in all three languages under scrutiny. In Spanish, this type is frequent in academic texts, where it has stylistic effects similar to the plural of modesty, see (84). English and Czech uses of the tentative conditional are represented by (85) and (86). (84) Sp En el material alfarero colectado en Kuelap sea de excavaciones o de superficie, no hemos encontrado signos o huellas de influencia de ninguno de los estilos del Horizonte Medio. Esto estaría indicando que durante ese período la alfarería de Kuelap se rigió por su propia tradición cultural […]. ‘In the po#ery material collected at Kuelap, whether from excavations or from the surface, we have not found signs or of traces of the influence of any of the Middle Horizon styles. "is indicates / would indicate that during this period the po#ery of Kuelap was guided by its own cultural tradition […].’ ‘V hrnčířských památkách shromážděných v Kuelapu, ať už ve vykopávkách nebo na povrchu, jsme nenalezli žádné známky nebo stopy vlivu některého ze stylů středního horizontu. To naznačujeprs.ind / by naznačovalo, že se v daném období kuelapská keramika řídila svou vlastní kulturní tradicí […].’ CORPES XXI Academic. Arturo Ruiz Estrada – La alfarería de Kuelap: tradición y cambio. English and Czech translation: author. (85) En It would seem that “charged” in this context would mean actually charged rather than chargeable. ‘Pareceprs.ind /(parecería) que, en este contexto, “imputado” significaría efectivamente imputado, no imputable.’ ‘Zdá seprs.ind / (zdálo by se), že „vyměřený“ by v tomto kontextu znamenalo skutečně vyměřený, nikoli vyměřitelný.’ BNC Academic.39 BNC: J7A. W_ac_polit_law_edu. Patrick C. Harlow Soares. Non-Resident Trusts: Tax Planning Opportunities. A Specially Commissioned Report. Spanish and Czech translation: author. (86) Cz Zápas v Bystrci, čerstvě sestoupivší z extraligy, nebyl tak jednoznačný, jak by napovídal výsledek. ‘El partido en Bystrc, recién relegado de la Extraliga, no fue tan claro como sugiereprs.ind/ (sugeriría) el resultado.’ 39 Examples of usage taken from the British National Corpus (BNC) were obtained under the terms of the BNCEnd User Licence. Copyright in the individual texts cited resides with the original IPR holders. For information andlicensing conditions relating to the BNC, please see the web site at h#p://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. 101 5. typology of conditional uses ‘"e match in Bystrc, recently relegated from the Extraleague, was not as clear-cut as the result suggests / would suggest.’ ABM. m.ragby.cz. Spanish and English translation: author. "e tentative conditional is also frequently used with performative verbs with the meaning “(dare to / venture to) say”, “call”, “guess”, “point out” and “emphasise”, see (87) for an example. (87) Sp permítame que le diga que yo creo que muchas veces llegamos a lo que llamaría un exceso de racionalización ‘let me tell you that I believe that we oCen reach what I would call excessive rationalism’ ‘dovolte mi, abych vám řekl, že si myslím, že se často dostáváme k něčemu, co bych nazval přehnanou racionalizací’ CORPES XXI Oral. Press conference of the Council of Ministers of the Spanish Government: Rueda de prensa viernes 9 de marzo de 2001. English and Czech translation: author. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 19. Figure 19. Type 4A. 102 Since the conditional in Type 4A depends on a hypothetical and highly schematic G2, its epistemic status is unspecified, and the verb meaning is construed as entirely virtual. "e relationship between G1 and G2 can be defined as a distance relationship given by the speaker’s communicative intention (the arrow symbolises the speaker’s part of the communication in G1΄). Similar to Type 3C, the speaker’s doubt as to whether the implicit secondary ground is at all relevant in relation to the communication situation is invoked here (the dashed line forming the arrow connecting G1 and G2 and the reflection of G1 background in G1΄). Applying the proposed representation to (84) gives rise to the following interpretation of estaría indicando (‘becond indicating’). "e validity of “be indicating” is entirely dependent on an implicit G2. In the given context, G2 defining characteristics can be resumed as “if I interpret all indications correctly”, “if I am not mistaken”. "e conditional meaning is again construed without a direct relation to G1, thus implying the speaker’s epistemic distance. "e reason for creating the secondary ground is the speaker’s uncertainty as to whether (s)he is right in his/her opinion or hesitation as to whether the information presented is at all relevant to the communication situation (i.e. an expression of the speaker’s actual or apparent modesty and his or her uncertainty as to whether such a way of grasping the topic is even worthy of the addressee’s a#ention). As mentioned above, in Spanish this conditional type is also typical for academic texts. Bermúdez (2016) analyses these usages in contrast to the atemporal quotative (condicional de rumor, in Bermúdez’ terminology) and poses the question of the extent to which the two usages can be understood as interrelated. "e author concludes that while condicional de rumor presents third-hand information, the conditional referred to here as tentative is close to the hypothetical conditional and presents second-hand information which is being reformulated or reinterpreted by the current speaker. In my understanding, the difference between the two types lies rather in the nature of secondary ground, which in the case of type 4A is not evidential, but hypothetical. "is is also the reason why Type 4A can also be found in English and in Czech, which, on the contrary, lack the purely quotative conditional of Type 3D. 5.4.2 4b attenuating conditional In occurrences marked as 4B, the speaker also uses the conditional to weaken the validity of the sentence proposition. Nevertheless, unlike with Type 4A, this weakening does not primarily express epistemic uncertainty. For reasons of politeness, the validity is presented as depending on the addressee’s permission or consent and the conditional could be supplemented by constructions with the meaning of “if you don’t mind” or “if you will allow”. Examples of this usage can be found in all the languages analysed, see (88), (89), (90). 103 5. typology of conditional uses (88) Sp por lo tanto / yo le recomendaría así que se guíe un poco más por las informaciones que le podemos dar nosotros ‘I would therefore recommend that you rely a li#le bit more on the information we can give you’ ‘doporučil bych vám tedy, abyste se více řídil informacemi, které vám můžeme poskytnout my’ CORPES XXI Oral. Press conference of the Council of Ministers of the Spanish Government: Rueda de prensa del viernes 27 de julio de 2001. English and Czech translation: author. (89) En "e next point I would raise, and this is er by looking at item three on page one, is the income split […]. ‘El siguiente punto que plantearía, y esto es mirando el punto tres en la página uno, es la división de ingresos […].’ ‘Dalším bodem, který bych zmínil, a to když se podíváme na bod tři na straně jedna, je rozdělování zisku […].’ BNC Oral.40 BNC: FUK. S_meeting. SP:FUKPSUNK. British Rail Team Brief Meeting. Spanish and Czech translation: author. (90) Cz S něčím bych si s Vámi dovolil polemizovat. ‘Me permitiría discrepar de usted en algo.’ ‘"ere is something I would allow myself to argue with you about.’ ABM. romanohangos.cz. Spanish and Czech translation: author. "e 4B subtype frequently appeared with verbs meaning “wish”, “like”, “need”, “ask for” and “do a favour”, as represented by (91). (91) Sp “Me gustaría hacerle una pregunta”, dijo el juez unos momentos después. ‘“I would like to ask you a question,” the judge said a few moments later.’ ‘„Rád bych vám položil otázku,“ řekl soudce o chvíli později.’ AHM. 6865.blogcindario.com English and Czech translation: author. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 20. 40 Examples of usage taken from the British National Corpus (BNC) were obtained under the terms of the BNCEnd User Licence. Copyright in the individual texts cited resides with the original IPR holders. For information andlicensing conditions relating to the BNC, please see the web site at h#p://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. 104 In Type 4B, the speaker construes a highly schematic G2 whose existence is presented as implicitly conditioned by the addressee’s permission (echoing A in G1΄). As in Type 4A, G1΄ further subjectively reflects the communication situation (represented by the dashed line connecting G1 and G2, which depicts the speaker’s uncertainty about whether G2 and its dependent conditional are relevant to the communication situation). Applying this interpretation to the example (88) makes it possible to paraphrase the meaning of recomendaría (‘I would recommend’) as follows. "e meaning of “recommend” is construed as hypothetical, with its validity being entirely dependent on G2. G2 is a schematic ground that lacks detailed specification and is linked to the actually existing G1 primarily through the addressee of the recommendation in question. "e speaker presents the validity of “recommend” as dependent on the addressee’s implicit permission to be given recommendations and as uncertain even with respect to the topic of the conversation (loose paraphrase: “I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to recommend anything at all in the given situation and whether I may recommend anything to you”). 5.4.3 4c “if iwere you” conditional Concordances marked as 4C represent a specific subtype of mitigating conditional used for reasons of politeness. "is type is not mentioned in the general classification of conditional meanings presented in Chapter 3, but with respect to its representation within the methodology proposed here, it can be separated from the a#enuation Figure 20. Type 4B. 105 5. typology of conditional uses Type 4B. Although its occurrences were not very frequent in the corpus and primarily appeared in the Czech oral and web corpora (see Statistics in Chapter 5.4.5), they are not systematically excluded for Spanish or English either. In the uses falling under Type 4C, adding constructions with the meaning “if I were in your place” is possible. Formally, they essentially imply Type 1D, where the conditional validity is determined by an implicit and highly schematic condition defined as “if it came to that”, “if I am not mistaken”. However, what distinguishes Type 4C from Type 1D on the pragmatic level is the orientation towards the addressee, to whom the speaker politely recommends a particular type of behaviour, see (92) for an example. (92) Cz no to bych extra neřešil. to je taková blbost ‘bueno, yo no me preocuparía mucho por eso. es una tontería’ ‘well, I wouldn’t worry too much about that. it’s just bullshit’ ORAL v1. 10H013N– visit. Spanish and English translation: author. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 21. Figure 21. Type 4C. As suggested above, the graphical representation resembles Type 1D with a highly schematic and hypothetical G2 on which the eventual realisation of the conditional meaning is entirely dependent. "e difference here lies in the relation between G1 and G2, and thus in the content of the simplified G1΄. In this case, G1΄ reflects only the communication situation and the relationship between G1 and G2 is again presented as 112 implicitly construes his/her surprise at the inconsistency of a certain element of the communication situation with its previous course of action and requests the addition of information that would make it possible to anchor the verb meaning in relation to the communication situation. An analysis of the meaning of “tener sentido” (‘make sense’) from example (94) according to the proposed interpretation follows. In the speaker’s view, the proposed visit is not coherent with the communication situation and the speaker implicitly evaluates the proposal as surprising (subjective reflection of the speaker in G1΄). "e meaning of “make sense” is fully dependent on G2, which is construed as a partial copy of G1 where the link between “make sense” and the rest of the communication situation is missing. If the addressee can subsequently further specify the definitional characteristics of this secondary ground, i.e. to define the conditions that give meaning to and justify the proposed visit, the conditional meaning can become valid. If assuming such a clarification does not take place, the conditional meaning will remain virtual and will not be in any temporal or modal relation to G1. 5.5.2 5aa “why would you say that?” conditional As observed in Chapter 3.2.2, in English, the mirative-interactional conditional can be used in situations where the speaker does not intend to question the validity of the conditional meaning. "e speaker only emphasises that the conditional meaning is inconsistent with the information available to him in G1. "e corpus analysis did not reveal any occurrences of would that could be classified in the above manner. For completeness, I present below a manually-searched example that does not form part of the statistics, see (97). (97) En (manually-searched example, outside the original concordance) Me: “Why should I, you think I am a freak, an idiot and a nobody. Why would you fucking care?” She shook her head at me: “Why would you say that, Mellissa. I am here to help you. I am here to listen to you. I want to help you if I can. […].” ‘Yo: “Por qué habría de hacerlo, tú crees que soy un bicho raro, una idiota y un don nadie. ¿Por qué coño te importa?”. Sacudió la cabeza y me preguntó: “¿Por qué dicesprs.ind eso, Mellissa? Estoy aquí para ayudarte. Estoy aquí para escucharte. Quiero ayudarte si puedo. […].”’ ‘Já: „Proč bych měla? Myslíš si, že jsem divná, že jsem blbá, že nejsem nikdo. Proč by tě to sakra mělo zajímat?“ Zavrtěla hlavou: „Proč tohle říkášprs.ind, Melisso? Jsem tady, abych ti pomohla. Jsem tady, abych tě vyslechla. Chci ti pomoct, jestli budu moci […].“’ AAM. bigclosetr.us. Spanish and Czech translation: author. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 24. 113 5. typology of conditional uses "e cognitive representation of Type 5Aa is largely identical to the default Type 5A but differs in the relationship between the conditional meaning and G2. G2 is construed here as fully evidential, with the existence of an element that would anchor the conditional meaning in relation to the rest of the communication situation being presupposed. In other words, the speaker is not questioning that such an element exists according to the addressee, thus (s)he is not even questioning the validity of the conditional meaning itself. "e speaker is only accentuating that (s)he cannot identify this element, which results in surprise. "e object of doubt here is not the existence of the element complementing G2 per se, but rather the question of whether, even aCer its complementation, it is possible to unambiguously infer the conditional meaning from G2, i.e. the accentuation of the dubitative-evaluative element. 5.5.3 5ab question-echoing conditional Czech also has a specific subtype of conditional question which is used to echo a question, indirectly inviting the addressee to find the answer on his/her own using the information available in G1. Again, this is a subtype that was not found in the analysed concordance, but for the sake of completeness, I present a manually-searched example Figure 24. Type 5Aa. 114 (98). English does not have a systematic means of expressing this type of question. In Spanish, the periphrastic future can be used to express similar notions (see the Spanish translation of (98)). (98) Cz (manually-searched example, outside the original concordance) „Říkal vám něco?“ zeptal jsem se. „Co by říkal? Umí snad mluvit?“ (literally: ‘What would he say? Can he talk?’) ‘—¿Le ha dicho algo? —pregunté. —¿Qué me va a decirsay-periphrastic.fut.3sg, si no sabe hablar?’ (literally: ‘What is he going to say if he cannot talk?’) ‘“Did he say anything to you?” I wanted to know. “What can he say? D’you think he can talk?”’ InterCorp. Ivan Klíma – Láska a smetí. Spanish translation: Judit Romeu Labayen. English translation: Ewald Osers. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 25. Figure 25. Type 5Ab. "e graphical representation of 5Ab is again largely identical to Type 5A. "e conditional meaning is construed as hypothetical and resulting from the completion of G2, which echoes information available in G1 (i.e. its evidential element). "e only difference is the motivation for creating the secondary ground. "e speaker does not only express the astonishment at a particular G1 element, as in 5A, (s)he is also reacting to a question posed by the addressee (see the arrow representing A’s communicative intentions in G1΄). 115 5. typology of conditional uses "e proposed interpretation applies to (98) in the following manner. "e speaker is immediately responding to the addressee’s question of whether the sentence subject said something. "e speaker repeats the verb říkat (“say”) and presents its validity as dependent pending the completion of G2. G2 is a secondary ground containing relevant information from G1, in this case particularly the fact that the subject cannot speak and thus cannot say anything. "e speaker invites the addressee (with a modal shade of mockery) to formulate a condition that, while preserving the validity of the information that the subject cannot talk, could give validity to the meaning of the verb “say”. "e question Co by říkal? (literally: ‘What would he say?’) can thus be paraphrased as “define a situation in which a subject who is known not to be able to talk could say something”. 5.5.4 5b mirative dubitation Type 5B corresponds to the dubitative use of the Czech conditional, which shares some features with the Spanish dubitative (Type 3B) while also displaying many formal differences. "e Czech dubitative can only appear in direct yes/no questions, dubitative interpretation is obligatorily marked by the particle že and, unlike cantaría, the Czech dubitative is atemporal. (99) represents an example of Czech dubitative expressing anteriority; (100) is an example of the prospectively oriented dubitative conditional. (99) Cz jo hale už maj zase za sto devět ten kelímek [pleťového krému] že by začali dělat nějaký akce? ‘mira, esta taza [de crema de piel] cuesta ciento nueve otra vez ¿habrán comenzado41 las promociones?’ ‘oh, look, this cup [of skin cream] costs one hundred and nine again maybe they’ve started a promotion?’ ORAL v1. 06U029N – visit. Spanish and English translation: author. (100) Cz takže takovej dobrej happening jo?. ty. to že bych se přihlásila? ‘así que una especie de evento ¿no? vaya. ¿serácantaré que me apunto?’ ‘so a kind of nice happening right? wow. I might apply’ ORAL v1. 08A079N – conversation at home. Spanish and English translation: author. "e examples (99), (100) represent well the mirative element of the Czech atemporal dubitative, which the Spanish dubitative lacks. "e dubitative question in Czech 41 "e form habrán comenzado corresponds here to present perfect dubitative. 116 is usually formulated as an immediate response to a surprising finding forming part of the current communication situation, i.e. the surprisingly low price of the cream (99) and the new information about the happening in the example (100). "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 26. Figure 26. Type 5B. "e cognitive representation of the relationship between G2 and the conditional meaning is identical to Type 3B. "e difference here is the atemporal nature of the Czech dubitative, which implies a different relationship between G1 and G2: G2 is not anterior with respect to G1, so the temporal boundary of G1 does not play a role here. "e conditional here subjectively reflects the speaker’s distance from the verb meaning and the fact that this meaning is not directly dependent on G1. Figure 26 represents this through G1΄ placed next to the arrow connecting G1 and G2. G1΄ reflects only the speaker’s surprise concerning an element of the communication situation. "is surprise gives rise to G2, which contains most of the G1 components, but as with Type 5A, a unifying element is missing. From the opposite perspective, it can be said that by using the conditional, the speaker indicates that the verb meaning cannot be (yet) fully anchored in G1 since some important logical links are missing. In response, the speaker implicitly construes G2 accentuating the missing G1 element (s)he is trying to find. 117 5. typology of conditional uses As with Type 5Aa, the existence of such an element is rather presupposed in this case, since the situation that caused the speaker’s surprise actually occurred, but the speaker cannot explain it satisfactorily. "e conditional meaning is then construed with a moderate degree of epistemic certainty since it results from the speaker’s reasoning about the G2 content, where the speaker puts the available information together and considers whether the resulting picture establishes a sufficient reason for validating the conditional meaning. Figure 26 represents this (by analogy with Type 3B corresponding to the paste tense dubitative, see Chapter 5.3.2) through a reflection of the speaker and his/her reasoning in G1΄ placed next to the arrow connecting G2 and COND. "e conditional meaning also subjectively reflects the G2 content as the speaker a#empts to reconstruct it. Unlike with Type 5A, the conditional meaning is not construed as directly dependent on completing G2; rather, it is the result of the speaker’s process of reasoning about G2, so in the graphical representation G2΄ does not reflect the delimitation line of this primer. 5.5.5 5c “would you believe that” conditional Another type of conditional with a strong mirative component is inherent to spoken language and occurs primarily in Czech and English. Spanish prefers a construction with the modal verb poder (“can”) in similar contexts, see (101). For Type 5C, the defining characteristic is the speaker’s surprise at a certain element of the communication situation, followed by the formulation of a question in the conditional to confirm this element. (101) Cz To ještě nevíš, co holky vymyslely, když to mamá přinesla a každý věnovala po pilulce, představ si, že nejdřív to spolkly a potom jim bylo strašně dobře, tak jako v puse a v okolí ksichtu vůbec, mně to jde úžasně na oči a taky se po tom dobře dejchá nosem, jako by sis vzal mátovej bonbon, věřil bys tomu? ‘Aún no sabes lo que se les ocurrió a las chicas cuando Mamá lo trajo y obsequió a todos con una pastilla, ¡imagínate! Al principio se sentían genial, en la boca y por toda la cara. A mí me va fenomenal para los ojos y luego también se respira bien por la nariz, como si tomaras un caramelo de menta, ¿te lo puedescan–prs.2sg creerbelieve-inf?’ ‘And I haven’t told you yet what the girls thought up when Madame brought it and gave them a pill each. Just imagine, first they swallowed it and they had a fantastic sensation in their mouths and all around their faces. I found it was great for my eyes, and it helps clear my nose, like when you take a peppermint drop, would you believe?’ InterCorp. Miloš Urban – Lord Mord. Spanish translation: Kepa Uharte. English translation: Gerard Turner. "e graphical representation is shown in Figure 27. 118 "e cognitive representation is similar to the hypothetical Type 1D. "e conditional meaning is not subject to any specific condition; it is entirely speculative. "us, the definitional characteristics of G2 can again be formulated highly schematically as “if it came to that”. "e difference in Type 5C is in the relation of G2 to G1. As in all Type 5, the secondary ground is construed as an immediate response to an unexpected component of G1, this component being the only known element of G2. "us, Type 5C can also be understood as an indirect request for adding a piece of information that would define G2 in more detail. Applied to (101), the proposed interpretation of the meaning of věřil bys tomu “would you believe that” is as follows: “is the addressee able to imagine a situation that would make the meaning of ‘believe’ valid while also preserving the validity of the information we already have regarding the topic (i.e. the described properties of the pill)?” 5.5.6 Statistics Table 13 shows that the interactional mirative conditional is, as expected, virtually absent from the academic register (Im). Given that less than 17% of the occurrences came from the spoken corpus, where the highest frequency of Type 5 could be expectFigure 27. Type 5C. 119 5. typology of conditional uses Table 13. Type 5 and its subtypes in the corpus. Row/ Column a b c d e f g h i j k l m I Type Freq ALL % Type / Whole corpus Freq SP Freq EN Freq CZ % Type / SP corpus % Type / EN corpus % Type / CZ corpus Freq Parallel (Freq/3) Freq Araneum Freq Oral Freq Academic II Interactional mirative 48 2.7 5 12 31 0.8 2.0 5.2 30 (10)8 9 1 III Subtype Freq ALL % Subtype / Type A Freq SP Freq EN Freq CZ % Subtype / SP Type 1 % Subtype / EN Type 1 % Subtype / CZ Type 1 Freq Parallel (Freq/3) Freq Araneum Freq Oral Freq Academic IV 5A41 85.4 5 12 24 100.0 100.0 77.4 27 (9)6 7 1 V5B 3 6.3 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 9.7 0 1 2 0 VI 5C 4 8.3 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 12.9 3 (1)1 0 0 120 ed, the overall frequency of this type in the sample was relatively low (comparable in absolute numbers to the modal-evidential Type 3, which had a total of 44 occurrences). Type 5A, which is used in all the languages studied (IVg–i), significantly dominates the respective subtypes in terms of frequency. 5.6 type 6: ground echoing conditional Type 6, which I call the ground echoing conditional, can be found in Czech and in English. In both languages, this conditional type is primarily used in spoken language, which is probably the main reason why it appears only marginally in my language sample (see Statistics in Chapter 5.6.6). Type 6 shares a number of features with type 5. In both cases, it is a strongly evidential conditional, where the speaker builds G2 in response to a specific element from G1. "e validity of the conditional meaning is not questioned here, so the conditional lacks an epistemic component. Compared to Type 5, the mirative component is extremely weakened since the speaker construes a secondary ground that extracts a specific element from G1 to emphasise that element, not to express his/her surprise. Type 6 can take several forms in an actual communication, which differ in the nature of the element that is extracted from G1 although their basic cognitive representation is identical. For the sake of clarity, I distinguish the individual subtypes here as well, but the cognitive representation appears at the very end of the chapter and is analogous for all of them. 5.6.1 6a “iwould hope so” conditional Type 6A, which I will call the “I would hope so” conditional, was found among both the Czech and the English occurrences forming my corpus. With this conditional type, the speaker construes the verb meaning in an immediate and emphatic response to the addressee’s words and the verb meaning displays a strong relation to the previous communication content, see (102) and (103) for concrete examples. (102) En Oh it’s be#er than buying a new one isn’t it? I would hope so. ‘Es mejor que comprar uno nuevo, ¿no? Eso esperohope-prs.ind.1sg.’ ‘To je lepší než kupovat nový, ne? No to doufámhope-prs.ind.1sg.’ 121 5. typology of conditional uses BNC Oral.42 BNC: KSV. S_conv. SP:PS1K4, SP:PS1BY. 25 Convs Rec. by ‘Richard2’ (PS1BY) between 21 and 27 Feb 1992 with 8 i’s. Spanish and Czech translation: author. (103) Cz „[…] Dnešní čtenář se nad jeho hrůzostrašnými scénami popadá za břicho – třeba když soše zavražděného knížete Alfonsa Dobrého vytryskne z nosu krev. Opravdu pitomá situace – socha potřebuje kapesník. Ale neznamená to, že při jiných scénách ti nevstávají hrůzou vlasy na hlavě.“ „To bych řekla. Co ti v Otrantském zámku připadalo nejstrašnější?“ ‘—[…] El lector actual se desternilla de risa ante sus escenas espeluznantes…, por ejemplo, cuando a la estatua del príncipe asesinado Alfonso el Bueno le sale sangre por la nariz. Realmente es una situación penosa: la estatua necesita un pañuelo. Pero eso no significa que en otras escenas no se te erice el pelo de miedo. —Eso diría yo. ¿Qué te pareció más aterrador de la novela?’ ‘“[…] "e modern reader finds his scenes of would-be hair-raising horror quite ludicrous – as when the statue of the good Duke Alfonso has a nosebleed. Pre#y silly, isn’t it? A statue in need of a handkerchief! But there are some scenes in "e Castle of Otranto that really do make your hair stand on end.” “I should say so! What did you find most horrifying?”’ (literally: ‘I would say so! What did you find most horrifying?’) InterCorp. Miloš Urban – Sedmikostelí. Spanish translation: Kepa Uharte Mendicoa. English translation: Robert Russel. 5.6.2 6b “to bychom měli” conditional As observed in Chapter 3.3.2, the Czech “to bychom měli” conditional also displays a strong relationship to an element of the communication situation. A typical context for its use is shown in (104). (104) Cz no jo u mě to mělo fungovat taky ale. že by se ten projekt vy* měl vypálit na disk rovnou… (kašel) hmm … (oknem je slyšet hluk) a jo dobrý. to nechci (nesrozumitelné) takže todle by běželo. ‘bueno, a mí también me debería funcionar, pero el proyecto *debería* grabarse en el disco directamente. (tos) 42 Examples of usage taken from the British National Corpus (BNC) were obtained under the terms of the BNCEnd User Licence. Copyright in the individual texts cited resides with the original IPR holders. For information andlicensing conditions relating to the BNC, please see the web site at h#p://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. 6. conclusions 130 6.1 general statistics Table 15 summarises the frequency-related information about each conditional type, as presented progressively in Chapter 5. Types 1, 2 and 4 unsurprisingly prevail in this respect. For Spanish, together they account for 91.9% of all occurrences of cantaría (Column g). For English, they represent 97.8% of all occurrences of would (Column h). For Czech, 93.3% of non-congruential uses of zpíval bych were labelled as hypothetical or mitigating. Strongly evidential Types 3, 5 and 6 appeared in less than 10% of cases. "e reasons for this are, in my opinion, different for Type 3 and Types 5–6. "e modal-inferential Spanish conditional (Types 3A–C) is probably the most complex type examined here in terms of combining a modal-inferential element with past-tense reference. "is makes Types 3A–C an important systemic component of the morphological expression of probability in Spanish, but in practice, it is difficult to find contexts that require such a specifically defined verb meaning. "e quotative subtype 3D, which does not have a clearly defined temporal orientation, dominated this group in terms of frequency (see Chapter 5.3.5). Types 5 and 6 lack both inferential and past-tense references, but nevertheless are strongly tied to the communication situation. "is predisposes them to be used primarily in spoken language, a register that was not sufficiently represented in the language sample to examine these types in more detail in terms of actual usage. Taking the individual subtypes into account, for Spanish, the most frequent subtype was 2A Future-of-the-past: sequence of tenses (179 occurrences, i.e. 29.8% of all Spanish conditionals, see Chapter 5.2.4). "is subtype had a very similar absolute frequency in English, where it was also the most frequent (167 occurrences, i.e. 27.8% of all English conditionals, see Chapter 5.2.4). However, these numbers may be influenced by the high frequency of fiction texts wri#en in the past tense forming the parallel subcorpus. In Czech, the most frequent subtype was 1C Progressive development of a virtual scenario (148 occurrences, i.e. 24.7% of all Czech conditionals). 131 6. conclusions Table 15. Conditional types in the corpus. Row/ Column a b c d e f g h i j k l m I Type Freq ALL % Type / Whole corpus Freq SP Freq EN Freq CZ % Type / SP corpus % Type / EN corpus % Type / CZ corpus Freq Parallel (Freq/3) Freq Araneum Freq Oral Freq Academic II 1 Hypothetical 903 50.2 211 258 434 35.2 43.0 72.3 395 (132)167 142 199 III 2 Temporal 501 27.8 246 255 0 41.0 42.5 0.0 387 (129) 43 25 46 IV 3 Modal- -evidential 44 2.4 44 0 0 7.3 0.0 0.0 10 (3) 10 10 14 V4 Mitigating 294 16.3 94 74 126 15.7 12.3 21.0 76 (25) 71 108 39 VI 5 Interactional mirative 48 2.7 5 12 31 0.8 2.0 5.2 30 (10) 8 9 1 VII 6 Ground echoing 10 0.6 0 1 9 0.0 0.2 1.5 2 (1) 1 6 1 132 6.2 conditional in the light ofcognitive grammar In the context of this monograph, the conditional has been analysed through the abstract grounding theory. Ground is more specifically apprehended here than in Langacker’s original concept and I orient it in relation to modality, tense and evidentiality. "is approach allows me to see the conditional as a relative verb form in a broad sense. While the opposition between relative and absolute tenses is generally accepted in linguistics, relativity in respect to modality and evidentiality seems to be an under-explored topic. "e concept of the secondary ground, which clearly implies relativity, makes it possible to grasp the relative dimension of modality and evidentiality. "e conditional in all the languages examined here can be interpreted with respect to an implicit G2, whose definitional characteristics then define the validity of the conditional meaning. In my understanding, each of the analysed conditional uses expresses some type of relative relation to G1. To understand this relation, G2 and its connection to G1 must always be taken into account. Defining the conditional meaning through G1 and G2 components then proves to be a tool for accurately capturing the shades of meaning that the conditional expresses as well as comparing them across languages. A systematic comparison of the Spanish and English conditionals, which have a close relationship to the future tense, with the Czech conditional, which lacks a similar characteristic, challenges the theory that the hypothetical meanings of cantaría and would evolved from temporal meanings. In Chapters 5.1 and 5.4 it was possible to observe that the hypothetical and mitigating usages are comparable in the three languages, regardless of the different origins of the respective conditional forms. If the Czech conditional functioned originally as pluperfect indicative as Kosek (2017b) states, the default value of this verb form can be defined for all the languages examined here as one of relativity. For Czech, however, this initial value is completely devoid of prospectivity. "e different conditional types presented in this monograph can be understood as gradual categories. Indeed, several borderline examples have been pointed out throughout the text. Analogies in the cognitive representation of the different types have also been systematically highlighted, emphasising their mutual semantic proximity. My claim is that the graphical representation proposed in this monograph makes it possible to see even very subtle differences in meaning and put them in relation to temporal, modal or evidential components of the ground, thus also defining them in detail. 133 6. conclusions 6.3 cantaría in contrast with would and zpíval bych and its place in the spanish tme system "e contrastive approach to the Spanish conditional allows us to identify functions of cantaría that can be considered typical for Spanish or Romance languages, i.e. lacking English and Czech counterparts. "e analyses clearly show that these are the modal- -inferential and quotative uses, defined collectively as the modal-evidential Type 4. "us, the analyses suggest that the evidential component of cantaría is of a different nature than the evidential component of would and zpíval bych defining the interactional mirative Type 5 and the echoic Type 6. "e English and Czech conditionals show a number of interactional uses that put the verb meaning in direct relation to the communication situation. In cantaría, evidential functions lacking a similar interactional component predominate. To conclude, I now briefly return to the traditional question of how to classify cantaría in the Spanish TME system. In light of the above analyses, the best possible answer seems to be that cantaría is a relative verbal form involved equally in the expression of temporal, modal and evidential meanings. In the hypothetical and mitigation interpretation, cantaría functions as relative indicative, i.e. a verb form expressing factuality not in relation to the moment of speech, but in relation to a hypothetical situation. In its temporal uses cantaría functions primarily as relative future tense. I accept the hypothesis proposed by Zavadil (1980) and further elaborated in Zavadil and Čermák (2010) and Kratochvílová (2018b) that the probabilitive, dubitative and admissive uses of cantaré, habré cantado, cantaría and habría cantado can be understood as a specific verbal mood: the probabilitive, which also shows a strong inferential, i.e. evidential, component. In this sense, cantaría in its modal inferential interpretation (Types 3A–C) is relative probabilitive. Probability (in a broad sense, i.e. including dubitation and admission) is dependent on a particular past situation and the speaker’s reflecting on it. In the quotative interpretation (Type 3D), cantaría is again relative indicative construing the validity of the u#erance as dependent on the source of information. Finally, in the mirative use, cantaría is also relative indicative. With the mirative use, the speaker presents the verb meaning as factual only if information allowing to define its relationship to the current ground is added. 6.4 prospects for further research "is monograph aimed to present the Spanish conditional in the light of cognitive grammar and compare it with the conditional in two typologically different languages: English and Czech. "e text can also be read as a proposal to use Langacker’s grounding theory for systemic comparisons of different languages. 134 Methodologically, the monograph draws on parallel and monolingual corpora and authentic language material. "e methodology of working with the graphical representation of the ground and its elements proved to be sufficiently flexible in its application to concrete linguistic material and allowed a detailed analysis of the shades of the meaning of the conditional form in all the languages under study. "e work has also pointed out the non-negligible evidential element that the conditional exhibits, even in usages not primarily associated with this category, such as hypothetical, temporal or mitigation ones. "e methodology proposed here offers prospects for further research, primarily in two areas: a) a detailed cognitively oriented analysis of meanings expressed through grounding elements in a particular language, b) a comparison of the meanings of seemingly analogous constructions across languages. "e analysis of the ground with respect to its temporal, modal and evidential components and their reflection in an u#erance through the grounding elements could be used in the future to study other polyfunctional paradigms, whether in Spanish, English or another language (offering, for example, the question of the functions of the congruential conditional in Czech and the possibility of capturing these functions through the proposed analysis). "e contrastive element of the proposed analysis then offers prospects for future study of the functioning of the conditional in another language and a comparison of the functions of this verb form with the Spanish conditional. For Spanish linguistics, which is my main interest, the possibility is then offered of comparing the functions of different paradigms with similar functions and capturing the differences in their meaning through the methodology proposed here (e.g. the difference between synthetic and analytic future or the difference between the past tense imperfect and the simple past tense indefinido in environments allowing their alternation). résumé 136 "e monograph examines the Spanish conditional and compares it with the English and Czech conditionals. "e conditional is viewed through the prism of cognitive grammar, with the analyses being primarily based on the theory of grounding and subjectivity as defined by Langacker. "e introductory chapters define the terms with which I work, i.e. grounding (the communicative situation in which the speaker and addressee(s) find themselves), grounding elements (the grammaticalised elements through which we implicitly refer to the ground without explicitly mentioning it) and subjectivity in Langacker’s sense (the degree of implicitness with which the ground is referred to in the u#erance). In the chapters devoted to the conditional in Spanish, English, and Czech, I present an overview of the conditional forms in each of these languages, outline their evolution and continue with an overview of the functions that the conditional displays in these languages. "e emphasis here is on systemic comparison; I consistently point out functions of the conditional that are analogous in all the languages under study and functions that can be found in only one or two of the languages analysed. "e core of the monograph consists in the analysis of 1,800 authentic uses of Spanish, English and Czech conditionals, which come from language corpora consisting of different types of texts (fiction, academic texts, Internet language and transcripts of oral speeches). "e analysed language sample is balanced in terms of the different languages and text types represented. "e analysis of the linguistic material is based on Langacker’s conception of the ground introduced earlier, but at the same time offers my own approach to defining the concept, which emphasises the individual components that make up the ground. In the analysis, I distinguish between the temporal boundaries of the communication situation, which I take to be the basis of the category of tense, the speaker’s person and his/her thinking, which I take to be the basis of the category of modality, and the elements of the communication situation available to its participants, which I take to be the basis of the category of evidentiality. I understand the formal exponent of the conditional in all the languages under study (the suffix -ría in Spanish, the modal would in English and the auxiliary byin combination with the -lparticiple in Czech) as the prototypical grounding elements through which the speaker puts the verbal meaning in a certain relation to the ground. 137 résumé At the same time, in my analyses, I consistently take into account the specific elements of the ground as described above and their reflection in the verb meaning. In the analysis of the linguistic material, I distinguish six basic functions of the conditional, for which I subsequently define three to four subtypes each time. I distinguish the hypothetical conditional, the temporal conditional, the modal-evidential conditional, the mitigating conditional, the interactional mirative conditional and the ground echoing conditional. I define each type through authentic examples coming from the corpus and through a graphical representation that works with the components of the ground as described above. "is analysis allows me to define a unified account of the conditional in all the languages studied: the conditional form implies a secondary highly implicit (subjective) ground (referred to as G2) on which the conditional meaning depends. "is secondary ground always has some relation to the primary ground, i.e. to the actual communication situation (denoted as G1). "e different types of conditional use then differ from each other in the relation of G2 to G1 and in the elements of G2 that are implicitly reflected in the conditional meaning. "e analysis makes it possible to describe even the very subtle shades of meaning that different uses of the conditional express, and to define the temporal, modal and evidential components of the conditional uses in all the languages examined. "e final chapter then summarises the basic correspondences and differences between the Spanish conditional and the English and Czech conditionals. "e Spanish conditional is defined as a relative verb form. "e concept of relative modality and relative evidential are introduced and put in analogy with the relative tenses. 144 Palmer, Frank Robert. 1990. Modality and $e English Modals. Second Edition. New York & London: Routledge. Papafragou, Anna. 2010. Modality: Issues in $e Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Brill. Penny, Ralph. 2009. AHistory of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Original work published 1991. Peterson, Tyler. 2017. “Grammatical Evidentiality and the Unprepared Mind.” In Expressing and Describing Surprise, edited by Agnès Celle, and Laure Lansari, 51–89. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. h#ps://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.03pet RAE. 1973. Esbozo de una nueva gramática española. Madrid: Espasa. RAE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. RAE. 2020. “CORPES XXI.” Accessed November 18, 2020. h#ps://www.rae.es/banco-de-datos/corpes-xxi Rivero, María Luisa. 2014. “Spanish Inferential and Mirative Futures and Conditionals: An Evidential Gradable Modal Proposal.” Lingua 151: 197–215. h#ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.009 Rodríguez Rosique, Susana. 2019. El futuro en español. Berlin: Peter Lang. Rojo, Guillermo. 1974. “La temporalidad verbal en español,” Verba 1: 68–149. Rojo, Guillermo, and Aleixandre Veiga. 1999. “El tiempo verbal. Los tiempos simples.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 2867–2934. Madrid: Espasa. Smet de, Hendrik, and Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2006. “Coming to Terms with Subjectivity.” Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3): 365–392. h#ps://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2006.011 Sobczak, Witold. 2020. Las formas verbales con vector de posterioridad en el español peninsular y en su variedad mexicana. Łodź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łodzkiego. Song, Mean-Young. 2008. “"e Semantics of Epistemic Would.” Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 8 (2): 265–294. h#ps://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.8.2.200806.265 Song, Mean-Young. 2011. “Epistemic Necessity Modality and Presupposition.” English Language and Linguistics, 17 (3): 111–142. h#ps://doi.org/10.17960/ell.2011.17.3.005 Squartini, Mario. 2001. “"e Internal Structure of Evidentiality in Romance.” Studies in Language, 25 (2): 297–334. h#ps://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ Stalnaker, Robert C. 2019. Knowledge and Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. h#ps://doi. org/10.1093/oso/9780198810346.001.0001 Svoboda, Karel. 1973. “Ogramatické modálnosti se zřetelem ksouvětí.” Otázky slovanské syntaxe 3: 233–241. Sweetser, Eve. 1998. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Original work published 1990. Ševčíková, Magda. 2009. Funkce kondicionálu zhlediska významové roviny. Praha: ÚFAL. Ševčíková, Magda. 2010. “Kondicionál přítomný jako součást explicitních performativních formulí.” Korpus– gramatika– axiologie 1: 41–63. Štícha, František, et al. 2013. Akademická gramatika spisovné češtiny. Praha: Academia. Traugo#, Elizabeth C. 1989. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English.” Language 65: 31–55. Traugo#, Elizabeth C. 2010. “(Inter)Subjectivity and (Inter)Subjectification.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, edited by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelano#e, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. h#ps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 Traugo#, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. h#ps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500 Vatrican, Axel. 2014. “Usos y valores modales del condicional en español.” Archivum 64: 239–274. Vatrican, Axel. 2016. “El condicional de tipo modal en español y en francés: lectura y traducción.” MarcoELE 22: 216–228. Veiga, Aleixandre. 1987. “El presente histórico como hecho de sistema verbal.” Verba 14: 169–216. Veiga, Aleixandre. 1991. Condicionales, concesivas y el modo verbal en español. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Veiga, Aleixandre, and Guilermo Rojo. 1999. “El tiempo verbal. Los tiempos simples.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 2867–2939. Madrid: Espasa. 145 references Ward, Gregory. 2011. “Brave New Would.” In Proceedings of the Fortieth Western Conference on Linguistics, edited by Christina Galeano, Emrah Görgülü, and Irina Presnyakova, 139–160. Fresno: California State University. Ward, Gregory, Be#y J. Birner, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan. 2003. “APragmatic Analysis of the Epistemic Would Construction in English.” In Modality in Contemporary English, edited by Roberta Facchine#i, Manfred Krug, and Frank Palmer, 270–279. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. h#ps://doi. org/10.1515/9783110895339.71 Ward, Gregory, Jeffrey Kaplan, and Be#y J. Birner. 2007. “Epistemic Would, Open Propositions and Truncated CleCs.” In $e Grammar-Pragmatics Interface. Essays in Honor of Jeane%e K. Gundel, edited by Jeane#e K. Gundel, Ron Zacharski, and Nancy Ann Hedberg, 77–90. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. h#ps://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.155.06war Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English Auxiliaries. Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weimer, Björn. 2018. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality.” In $e Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 85–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press. h#ps://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.4 Willet, "omas. 1988. “ACross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12 (1): 51–97. h#p://dx.doi.org/10.1075/Sl.12.1.04wil Zamorano Aguilar, Alfonso. 2017. “Gramatización de las formas en -ría en la tradición lingüística hispánica: La etapa preacadémica. 1492–1771.” Moenia 23: 147–177. Zamorano Aguilar, Alfonso, and María Martínez-Atienza de Dios. 2020. “La unidad verbal cantaría en las gramáticas de ele. teorías lingüísticas subyacentes, terminología, valores y categorización.” Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 33 (2): 667–694. h#ps://doi.org/10.1075/resla.18023.zam Zavadil, Bohumil. 1980. Kategorie modality ve španělštině. Praha: Univerzita Karlova. Zavadil, Bohumil, and Petr Čermák. 2010. Mluvnice současné španělštiny. Praha: Karolinum. language corpora 148 Benko, Vladimír. 2015a. Araneum Anglicum Maius, Version 15.04. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Praha. h#ps://kontext.korpus.cz/ Benko, Vladimír. 2015b. Araneum Bohemicum Maius, Version 15.04. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Praha. h#ps://kontext.korpus.cz/ Benko, Vladimír. 2015c. Araneum Hispanicum Maius, Version 15.04. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Praha. h#ps://kontext.korpus.cz/ BNC. 2001. $e British National Corpus, Version 2. BNC World. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on Behalf of the BNC Consortium. h#p://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ Čermák, Petr, and Martin Vavřín. 2020. Corpus Intercorp– Spanish, Version 13 of 1. 11. 2020. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. h#ps://kontext.korpus.cz/ Klégr, Aleš, Michal Kubánek, Markéta Malá, Leona Rohrauer, Pavlína Šaldová, Denisa Šebestová, and Martin Vavřín. 2020. Corpus Intercorp– English, Version 13 of 1. 11. 2020. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. h#ps://kontext.korpus.cz/ Kopřivová, Marie, David Lukeš, Zuzana Komrsková, Petra Poukarová, Martina Waclawičová, Lucie Benešová, and Michal Křen. 2017. ORAL, Version 1 of 2. 6. 2017. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. h#ps://kontext.korpus.cz/ Křen, Michal, Václav Cvrček, Tomáš Čapka, Anna Čermáková, Milena Hnátková, Lucie Chlumská, Tomáš Jelínek, Dominika Kováříková, Vladimír Petkevič, Pavel Procházka, Hana Skoumalová, Michal Škrabal, Petr Truneček, Pavel Vondřička, and Adrian Jan. 2015. SYN2015. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. h#ps://kontext.korpus.cz/ RAE. 2020. Banco de datos. CORPES XXI, Version 0.92 of May 2020. h#p://www.rae.es Rosen, Alexandr, Martin Vavřín, and Adrian Jan Zasina. 2020. Corpus Intercorp– Czech, Version 13 of 1. 11. 2020. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu, FF UK. h#ps://kontext.korpus.cz/