Claudio Iacobini
email: ciacobini@unisa.it

Benjamin Fagard
email: benjamin.fagard@ens.fr

A diachronic approach to variation and change in the typology of motion event expression A case study: From Latin to Romance

Most studies dealing with variation and change between Verb-Framed and Satellite-Framed strategies adopt a synchronic approach. In this paper, adopting a diachronic point of view, we will see whether it is possible to account for changes driving languages from one prevalent type to the other. We will begin with an overview of the main proposals about the typology of motion event encoding from a variationist perspective, the theoretical premises of our approach to the analysis of (diachronic) change, and their relevance for a "Working Typology", arguing in favour of applying typological classification to the matching between individual event types and linguistic patterns instead of to languages as a whole. In the second part of this paper, taking Romance languages as a case study of typological change, we argue that variation and change cannot be explained in the framework of a holistic typology. Changes affecting motion event expression may result from phenomena which are independent from motion encoding. Besides, variations in the encoding of motion events should not necessarily be considered as changes introducing inconsistent features with respect to one of the two main framing structure (i.e. SF and VF). The final part of the paper lists a series of phenomena related to the encoding of path in Romance languages which rather than exceptions to the VF type may be considered more or less significant indicators of the emergence of SF patterns, hence to be interpreted from a methodological point of view as possible relevant signals of ongoing typological change in the preferred way of expressing motion.

The way languages express motion has been studied for quite some time, at least since Tesnière's remarks on motion in French and German (1959), but it has been the focus of much research in recent years. General typologies have been proposed to account for the different strategies adopted by individual languages, Talmy and Slobin are perhaps the two most influential authors on the subject (see a.o. Talmy 1985Talmy , 2000;;Slobin 2004Slobin , 2005Slobin , 2006Slobin , 2008)). Both classify languages according to two main types: Verb-Framed vs. Satellite-Framed in talmian terminology or Path-In-Verb vs. Path-In-Non-verb according to Slobin (2008). Among the many proposals of refinements and integrations of such bipartite taxonomy (cf. Beavers et al. 2010 for a recent overview), the account of the reasons driving a language to change from one prevalent type to another is one of the least investigated issues.

This paper, framed in the research line "diachrony, dynamic and variations" of the Trajectoire project, aims to fill this gap, since it deals with changes in the encoding of motion events in a diachronic perspective. One might ask why a research project on the typology of motion event should bother with diachrony.

The most obvious answer comes from the recognition that "most languages straddle more than one of the previously proposed typological categories" (Beavers, Levin & Tham 2010: 331) and that a possible explanation is the way in which languages change from one type to the other, as noted by Hickmann & Robert (2006: 5):

Changes in the expression of motion event are not abrupt, but unfolded in several stages over centuries, moreover the hybridization within languages at given points in time shows that language-internal variability corresponds to more general variability that can be observed across languages. That is, during the course of its history, a given language evolves from one type of system into a different type that is found in other languages. (our emphasis) As noted here, these typological classifications really apply to linguistic patterns or even to "individual complex event types within a language, not to languages as a whole" (Croft et al. 2010: 202). We believe that, by studying diachronic trends in the encoding of motion events, we can better assess tendencies which may emerge from synchronic variations observed in languages. This approach may allow us to identify turning points in the synchronic interaction between different encoding patterns. Besides, by studying changes in the preferred strategies of motion event encoding, we may identify implicational scales or possible stages in recurring paths of evolution. Of course, the ultimate goal of such diachronic studies is to find explanations for typological changes, i.e. in this case for why languages (i.e. speakers) change from one motion-encoding strategy to the other. However, such accomplishments lie far ahead, we fear.

THEORETICAL PREMISES OF OUR APPROACH

Typologies of motion event encoding -a brief account

Typologies of motion event encoding have evolved quite considerably since Talmy (1985) (cf. Matsumoto 2003). In this work, Talmy distinguishes between three types of lexicalization of motion events: at this stage of his theory, each language has one pattern as a dominant type, and dominancy can be judged by frequency and colloquiality of expression; this typological classification is applied only to motion verb constructions, and defined in terms of which of the four basic semantic components (Figure, Ground, Path, Manner) is expressed, or "incorporated", in the main verb together with motion. Talmy (1985) thereby defines three types of languages: manner-incorporating, path-incorporating, and ground-incorporating.

Talmy (2000) broadens the scope of his previous classification: constructions denoting events with resulting states of all types are included. Motion events describing motion on a path to a destination are thus put in relation with other kinds of delimited events implying resulting states (e.g. he ran into the cave / he painted the fence red). The focus is on which constituent encodes Path. Depending on wether the Path is expressed in the verb root or outside it, Talmy (2000) distinguishes two main types, respectively path-incorporating and manner-incorporating.

A scalar approach, instead of a discrete one, is adopted in Berman & Slobin (1994) and Slobin (2004, 2005), who take into account intra-and cross-linguistic variation: "Typological characterizations often reflect tendencies rather than absolute differences between languages" (Berman & Slobin 1994:118, fn 4). They include interactions between linguistic expression, discursive strategies, rhetorical style, and cognitive salience, and focus on the emergence of correlations between preferred strategies and linguistic features (e.g. higher number of manner verbs and higher articulation of Path expression in SF languages than in VF ones).

Croft et alii (2010) insist on the importance of proposing a typology of constructions rather than of languages as a whole; they advocate a search for cross-linguistic universals by examining the intralinguistic variation in the encoding of complex events.

We can conclude from this brief account that recent trends in research on motion-event encoding show at the same time the emergence of a consensus on a two-way scalar typology (Verb-vs Satellite-Framed in talmian terminology), and a growing attention to phenomena of variation 1 . In particular, the study of contexts which promote or inhibit the use of a given pattern has relativized the talmian claim that a language has one pattern as its dominant type, and it has opened the way for investigations on how different synchronic patterns interact, 1 Cf. Poplack (2001: 405), following mainly Labov and Sankoff (Labov 1969, Sankoff 1988): "The working hypothesis of Variation Theory is that within a given locus of variability, or variable context, each of two or more competing variants will occur at greater or lesser rates depending on the features that constitute the context. The expected proportion of each variant is the resultant of the combined contributions of the independent features defining its context." more precisely on how a new framing strategy can emerge and, with time, gain the upper hand. Starting at least with Aske (1989), there has been a growing attention on the extra-linguistic contexts which favour a given pattern, i.e. on the interaction between extra-linguistic and linguistic features (e.g. the presence or absence of dedicated goal particles or case markers).

Theoretical framework

Both intra-and cross-linguistic studies on variation in motion event encoding mainly deal with synchronic variation, while diachronic studies are few in number. Besides, both synchronic and diachronic studies mainly describe deviations from the canonical Talmian types (e.g. presence of SF patterns in purported VF languages or vice versa), but they do not bring to light the critical factors that allow or cause the change from one predominant type to the other (e.g. the emergence in a VF language of SF patterns and the gradual strengthening of these patterns, with the possibile outcome of a typological shift brought about by the prevalence of SF strategies).

However, we can identify various lines of research which may have significant consequences for the investigation of diachronic change in the typology of motion events, and which we will consider as sources of data, analysis and suggestions for our diachronic approach to the typology of motion encoding.

One is the research on causes of change, with explanations based on cognitive weight (i.e. ease of processing) due to the ease of encoding a given strategy in relation to linguistic features provided by languages (cf. Slobin 2008), as well as explanations based on typological or structural adequacy (i.e. the argued tendency of language structures to conform to ideal abstract structures or typological models, cf. Mateu & Rigau 2002;Herslund 2005) or on language contact (see Schøsler 2008). Another interesting line of research is that on the different resources languages make available for the encoding of motion events, and their possible variation in time; in works such as Filipovič (2007), Skopeteas (2008) Stolova (2008), Xu (2008), Iacobini (2009) Kopecka (2009a, in press) we may find studies on specific (groups of) languages about the typological shift in either direction. A quite different research line deals with linguistic phenomena other than the encoding of motion events, which may be related to or may favour one or the other main framing strategy (e.g. expression of resulting state, nominal compounding, cf. Snyder 2001, Folli & Ramchand 2005, Son 2007). A further research line foregrounds the matching between different event types and the linguistic patterns preferentially used for their encoding, as well as the role of linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts in the licensing of directional interpretation, even in the lack of overt linguistic path encoding (Aske 1989;Gehrke 2007;Nikitina 2008;Kopecka 2009b;Iacobini 2010;Iacobini & Vergaro in press). The search for implication scales concerning constructional types encoding different complex events types (cf. Croft et alii 2010) has some points in common with the last two research lines.

The theoretical tenets of our research are summarized in the following points:

a) The way in which the Path is expressed is the most important component for the encoding of motion events. b) The encoding of Path is in close correlation with (depends on?) the characteristics of the main predicate (usually a verb). If a sentence has only one verb, we can distinguish two main types: a) one in which the Path is expressed in the verbal root (Verb-Framed Talmy 2000, Path-In-Verb Slobin 2008, Head-Language Matsumoto 2003, Head-Framed Fortis & Vittrant, this issue); b) one in which the Path is expressed outside the verb root (Satellite-Framed Talmy, Path-In-Non-verb Slobin, Nonhead-Language Matsumoto), that is in some other element related to it ("extended version" of satellite, which also includes PPs and spatial morphological cases, cf. the paper on satellites by Imbert, Grinevald & Sores in this issue). Besides their lexical meaning (the most important distinction is between path and manner verbs 2 ), the argumental structure of the verb is also very relevant for the strategies of motion event encoding (i.e. some verbs can either select directional or locative particles; verbs having three arguments -typically Agent, Theme and Goaleasily accommodate with motion expression). c) The encoding (and decoding) of Path is the result of the interaction of the distribution of information across linguistic elements (e.g. verb root, temporal and aspectual markers, particles and adpositions), and co-textual informations and pragmatic inferences. d) Typological classification primarily refers to the patterns used to encode individual event types. As a consequence, typologies of languages as a whole are coarse generalizations which can be useful at a very broad level of classification. Intralinguistic variation should not be considered as deviation from an holistic type, rather possible clue leading to crosslinguistic universals about constructions. e) Since the encoding of motion events largely relies on "motionindependent morphological, lexical, and syntactic resources languages make available for encoding manner and path of motion" (Beavers, Levin & Tham 2010), changes affecting motion event encoding may happen outside the realm of motion expression. f) Different strategies of path encoding in a given language for a given event may have different (cognitive) costs, depending on the relative ease of managing linguistic resources this particular language makes available. g) The frequency of use of a given strategy is related to what is considered as the normal information to be linguistically expressed in the representation of a motion event, and for the lexical stock of verbs. As a consequence, extra-grammatical factors may yield preferences for a strategy over another (Beavers, Levin & Tham 2010).

2.3 Relevance of our approach for Grinevald's "Working Typology"

Our diachronic approach aims to provide methodological and practical tools for describing language change in the preferred expression of motion (i.e. typological shift from SF to VF or vice versa). At the same time, the analysis of diachronic change and its dynamics may help us find out which factors in synchronic variation are the most reliable indicators of ongoing diachronic change.

No satisfactory analysis of this sort has yet been made, not only on account of the prevalence of a holistic approach that has contained deviations observed in relation to two main framing patterns to the rank of (unexplained) exceptions, but also on account of the difficulties, in terms of both conceptual grid and time, required by an in-depth description of the encoding of motion events. These difficulties are considerable, since the interpretation of reasons for diachronic changes must be based on a detailed description of the encoding patterns and their mutual relations at a given point in time.

The need to optimize the tools for the investigation of language change and restrict or focus the scope of analysis is crucial for the investigation of oral and less described languages, for which in most cases we do not have large corpora, detailed grammatical descriptions, or data concerning previous stages of the language.

In oral languages without prior documentation is more difficult to identify conservative vs innovative trends, but even for languages with a long written tradition, we do not have in-depth analyses of the reasons for typological changes in motion event encoding. We have a fairly detailed documentation, but no pertinent in-depth analysis identifying possible causes of typological change of at least two cases, one in each direction; from SF to VF in the transition from Latin to Romance, and in the reverse direction in the transition from Old to Contemporary Chinese (Xu 2006(Xu , 2008; Figure 1 In the next part of this talk we will focus on linguistic phenomena used in the encoding of motion events in the transition from Latin to Romance languages.

FROM SATELLITE-FRAMED LATIN TO VERB-FRAMED ROMANCE?

The goal of this section is to recall what has been described as a typological shift in motion-event encoding, from SF to VF expression of motion: the evolution from Satellite-framed Latin to Verb-framed Romance. We will show that there is an important variation between Romance languages, which rules out a "simple" SF-to-VF shift. We further argue that a holistic typological classification in SF vs VF does not allow a proper approach to variation and change. In order to study the changes from Latin to Romance, we think it is necessary, rather than simply single out exceptions to "consistent" linguistic systems, to relate the different patterns of motion encoding to different kinds of events each of them is more likely to express. The question here is whether it is possible more precisely to understand how a language's strategy of motion-event encoding can change.

Latin vs Romance motion-event encoding

Latin is traditionally described as a Satellite-Framed language, in which Path is typically expressed by a preverb and / or a prepositional phrase, while the verb root often expresses manner of motion. This is the case in (2a) for tranatat, and the French translations (2b-d) illustrate the fact that Romance languages do not generally adopt the same strategy. 4), this replacement was a complex process, achieved in a number of ways, with differences across Romance languages. Thus, some Romance verbs meaning "to exit" arose through lexicalization of Latin prefixed verbs meaning "to come or go out" (3), others through the loss of the manner component of Latin salire "to jump" (4).

(3) Lat. ex-ire "to exit" > Cat. eixir, It. uscire, Sard. bessiri, bessire, Rum. a ieşi (4) Lat. salire "to jump" > Port. sair, Sp. salir "to exit"; It. salire "to go or come up"

Other evolutions have taken place, such as the emergence of specific directional verbs: whereas Latin uses various manner verbs with a directional preverb meaning "up" / "down" / "towards", Romance languages tend to use specific verbs meaning "to climb up", "to climb down", "to go forward" (without satellite). These verbs are typically Late Latin or Romance innovations, as illustrated in (5a-b) (cf. Stolova 2008).

( (6) a. quisquis servus sine dominico iussu foras exierit "any slave going abroad without the master's permission" (Petron., Satyr. 28, 7) b. et quod sursum est, deorsum faciunt (lit.) what is up they put down "they turn everything upside down" (Ibid., 63, 10) c. iusserunt autem eos foras extra concilium secedere "they had commanded them to go aside out of the council" (Act. apost. 4, 15) d. Cecidit de tertio cenaculo deorsum "and fell down from the third loft" (Ibid., 20, 9) e. Noli foras ire, in te ipsum redi "do not wish to go outside, return into yourself" (Aug., De vera relig. 39,72) Besides, even some Modern Romance varieties are rather SF than VF, as shown for North-Eastern Italian and Rhaeto-Romance varieties by Gsell (1982) and Berthele (2006) a.o., and even major Romance languages are not equally VF: Italian displays more SF characteristics than either French or Spanish (for instance the frequent use of directional post-verbal particles (satellites) associated with manner of motion verbs; cf. Iacobini & Masini 2006, Cini ed. 2008, Iacobini 2009).

Motion event encoding and global linguistic changes

A major innovation in the transition from Latin to Romance -as far as motion expression is concerned -is the unavailability of "simple" constructions expressing manner in the main verb in the representation of boundary-crossing events. The use of manner of motion verbs in Romance is generally restricted to goal-oriented events, as in (7). Since Romance languages have lost most satellites (e.g. directional preverbs) or other morphosyntactic devices clearly expressing boundary-crossing events, they tend to express Path in the main verb for the encoding of boundary-crossing events. As a consequence, if manner cannot be omitted, it is typically expressed in an adjunct, as in ( 8).

(7) Sp. corrieron a los botes, It. corsero alle navi "they ran to the boats" (8) Sp. entrar corriendo, Fr. entrer en courant, It. entrare di corsa "enter running"

The latter (in (8)) are "heavy" constructions, compared with Latin accurro "to run to", incurro "to run into" and similar constructions frequent in Satellite-Framed languages, for instance Eng. to run into. We may hypotesize (following Slobin 2008) that changes affecting the expression of boundary-crossing events are very likely to be the most important among processes leading to the restructuring of motion event expression in Romance languages. The necessity of expressing boundary-crossing motion events with path verbs might have favoured the emergence of such verbs, and the success of the VF strategy. Of course, this kind of impact is very difficult to measure, and at the moment remains a working hypothesis, but there is some evidence to support it, such as the semantic downgrading of Classical Latin manner verbs to generic motion verbs in Romance (cf. Schøsler 2008: Latin ambulare "to walk" > Fr. aller, Friulan lâ "to go"). Other language internal phenomena, not necessarily related to the expression of path, which plausibly played a role in the change of preferred ways of expressing motion events in the transition from Classical to Late Latin are the crisis in the system of spatial preverbs (García Hernández 1980, Haverling 2003), and the loss of distinction between stative and directional meanings both for prepositions and cases, linked to the gradual collapse of the case system (Fagard 2010: 199-224, cf. in + Ablative "location" and in + Accusative "direction, goal", foris "on the outside" / foras "to the outside", intus "on the inside"/ intro "to the inside").

While the consequences of these phenomena are quite well known in relation to the grammatical system of Latin, we do not yet have a clear picture of the processes leading to the restructuring of motion event expression in Romance. We know that these changes were gradual, and we can surmise that they were brought on partly by phenomena which were completely independent from the expression of motion.

Some explanations about the causes of change are clearly ruled out, such as typological (in)consistency, because changes introducing inconsistent features (with respect to a framing typology) do not make a language functionally deficient (cf. Lehmann 1985, Wischer 2006). How, then, are we to find out which linguistic phenomena played a major role in these changes, and which contexts may provide us with the most interesting hints about the dynamic of change? We think investigating the changes affecting the expression of boundary-crossing events might be a good starting point, because we believe that these changes may have triggered other processes leading to the restructuring of motion event expression in Romance languages, Path being an essential component in the expression of motion. Besides, we believe that the dynamics of change can be understood only through a careful investigation of the different strategies adopted for the encoding of motion and their relationships with different kinds of events. We think indeed that the "macroscopic" changes resulting in a different typology of motion expression could be the result of "microscopic" changes due to individual behaviors, along the lines of Keller's (1994) "Invisible-hand theory", and the constructionist step-wise dynamics of change (cf. Goldberg 2006, Traugott & Trousdale 2010), according to which micro-changes may give rise to systematic shifts with similar or more relevant effect than "cataclysmic" macro-changes. We argue that the interplay between lexical and morphosyntactic changes (even independent from motion expression) and specific linguistic means for motion event encoding may influence language users, leading them in some cases to gradually abandon the usual constructions and thus causing the gradual emergence of structures characterizing a different typology of motion event descriptions. It is therefore no surprise to find SF features in (overall) VF languages (and vice versa). More interesting is the question of which unpredicted features are better clues of possible ongoing changes. We do not yet have a theoretical framework of the possible paths of change from one type to the other, nor do we have detailed analyses on specific cases which could be used as generic methodological indications5 . The goal of the next section is to give a few indications in this direction.

EXCEPTIONS TO TYPOLOGICAL EXPECTATIONS

A dichotomic approach to the classification of languages is not very helpful in explaining change. A great number of languages are not easily classifiable into one type or another in the verbalization of motion events, especially if we move from a broad typological overview to a more fine-grained level of representation. Neither the acknowledgement of the existence of split or conflating types allow a better understanding of the dynamics of change. 6 A proper approach to the understanding of typological change in motion event encoding should therefore investigate the relationships between specific event types and preferred linguistic constructions, try to identify the characteristics which best contribute to define a type (cf. the list of factors which best contribute to degree of path description provided by Ibarretxe Antuñano 2009), and find out which phenomena best indicate the emergence of variation.

In this last section, we will briefly discuss four cases concerning Romance languages in which it is shown that variations with respect to the canonical frame types are not equally significant: some exceptions are more important than others. We believe that the focus on the variation on the matching between types of events and different patterns used to encode them will allows us to identify which signals are to be taken into account in order to recognize trends of linguistic change.

Manner in boundary-crossing events

As far as major Romance languages are concerned, dating at least from Aske (1989), scholars agree on the fact that the set of motion events which requires path conflation in the verb root does not concern all motion events but is restricted to bounded events. In ( 9 1996).

Italian is more liberal with respect to this restriction: a fair proportion of manner verbs may license a cross-boundary reading, given the appropriate context ( 11).

(11) a. It. Un orangotango salta fuori dal recinto. "An orangutan jumps out / bursts out of the pen". b.

It. Lei è scappata via da una porta laterale. "She ran away through a side door". c.

It. Invece di stare fuori sulla neve, corre dentro casa a guardare la televisione. "Instead of staying outside in the snow, s/he runs inside to watch TV" (from Iacobini 2010).

A possible explanation for such examples is provided by Slobin (2004: 225-226): according to him, though manner verbs are used in VF languages only if manner is foregrounded, and seem excluded when boundary-crossing is involved, the examples in ( 11) illustrate an important exception to this rule, i.e. "verbs that encode particular force dynamics -high energy motor patterns that are more like punctual acts than activities, such as equivalents of "throw oneself" and "plunge"." This would entail that

The only manner verbs that can occur in boundary-crossing situations are those that are not readily conceived of as activities, but, rather, as "instantaneous" acts. Thus one can "throw oneself into a room" but one generally can't "crawl into a room" in V-languages. (Ibid.: 226) However, as exemplified by ( 12), the preference shown in Italian for constructions involving a manner verb for the representation of punctual high force dynamics, does not rule out the use of the same construction for describing slow, quiet and careful movement. It. L'esofago scompare, scompare anche il fastidio forte e tenace per quel tubo che mi scivola dentro e si muove e striscia. "The esophagus disappears, as well as the strong and persistent discomfort caused by that tube sliding inside and moving and slithering" (from Iacobini 2010).

Keeping these considerations in mind, we can now reconsider the following implicational universal, proposed by Croft et alii (2010: 211): "If a telic path of motion is encoded by a satellite framing construction, then an atelic path of motion is also encoded by a satellite framing construction". Indeed, it might be better viewed in terms of prevalent patterns used in a language. We can say that, in a prevalent Verb-Framed language, the encoding of an atelic path of motion by a satellite construction is less significant than the encoding of a telic path. Conversely, if a construction involving a manner of motion verb (without high force dynamics) allows a boundary-crossing reading, it constitutes a very relevant "exception", i.e. a more significant manifestation of SF strategies.

In the lack of inherently directional satellites, the boundary-crossing reading is made possible through the interaction of linguistic features, co-textual informations and pragmatic inferences (cf. Nikitina 2008, Kopecka 2009, Levin et al. 2009). Besides the semantic and aspectual features of the verb (cf. § 4.2), the two characteristics playing a major role for directional reading and attainment of goal are the physical characteristics of locations designated by the noun of the prepositional phrase expressing the Ground and the the meaning of prepositions. Manner verbs are more suitable to receive a directional reading when the locations are objects or fixed spaces, while substances with ill-defined boundaries favour a locative reading. The explanation for this lies in the fact that well-defined locations allow the inference of punctual transition perceived as a change of state. Prepositions favouring the attainment of goal reading are the one that express the final part of a spatial orientation (e.g. It. su "on, onto, up", giù "down"), or the inside or outside of a location with well-defined boundaries (e.g. It. fuori "out(side), away, off", dentro "in(side), in(to)"). The use of complex prepositions is another factor enhancing goal reading (cf. Folli 2008 and examples (13a-b)).

(13) a.

It. Gianni corse dentro il parco.

[locative / directional]. Gianni ran inside the park b.

It. Gianni corse dentro al parco.

[directional / (locative)]. (lit.) Gianni ran inside to.the park (adapted from Folli 2008)

The appropriate combination of physical characteristics of the Ground and prepositions may induce a cross-boundary interpretation even with manner verbs whose semantics are not very compatible with a goal construction, cf. the Italian example in (14a-b). ( 14) a.

It. «Potremmo andare a fare colazione». Le disse mentre arrancava fuori dalla stanza. "«We could go to breakfast». S/he said as s/he trudged out of the room". b.

It. Per paura del leone, il re era già strisciato dentro il vaso di bronzo. "For fear of the lion, the king had already crawled into the bronze vase"

Of course, these are gradual phenomena, which depend on the fact that the distribution and frequency of given constructions determine their entrenchment and possible diffusion. In a VF language, the use of manner verbs is expected in (1); even cases such as (2), in which the non attainment of a goal is the default reading, are rather frequent. The difficulty of expressing the attainment of a goal with manner verbs (as main verb) in the absence of dedicated particles or prepositions is made obvious by the necessity of a resultative reading of the sentence, as in (3), in the presence of other elements which frame the event (in this case the auxiliary be characterizing the unaccusative construction, and a dependent clause from which we may infer that John arrived home). In ( 4) and ( 5), the encoding of a boundary-crossing event is done without the help of inherently directional satellites or prepositions: the Italian prepositions a and in do not make it possible to distinguish between location and direction. They both constitute valid examples of exceptions to the VF type, especially (5), given the semantic characteristics of the verb. For a VF language, the presence and use of constructions such as those in ( 4) and ( 5) should be seen as stronger exceptions than the use of manner verbs for the codification of displacement events.

Verb-Particle constructions

Another type of unexpected constructions in VF languages are Verb-Particle Constructions, i.e. complex verbs expressing direction with post-verbal particles. It is not unusual even for VF languages like the Romance ones to display Verb-Particle constructions both in Early Romance (12a; for Old French, namely, see Buridant 2000, Dufresne et al. 2001, Marchello-Nizia 2002) and in modern languages (12b-c; see Iacobini & Masini 2006, Iacobini 2009).

(12) a. Old French aler en avant "to go forward" (Marchello-Nizia 2002:214), descendre aval "to go down (downwards)", issir fors "to exit (outside)" 7 b. Modern French (colloquial) descendre en bas "to go down (downwards)", monter en haut "to go up (upwards)", sortir dehors "to go out (outside)" c. Modern Italian scendere giù "to go down (downwards)", uscire fuori "to go out" (lit. "to exit out"), mettere giù "to put down", rotolare giù "to roll down", strisciare via "to crawl away".

According to Slobin (2008), it is very plausible that verb-particle constructions are first used -in a VF language -to reinforce or emphasize path verbs (such as Italian uscire fuori, French sortir dehors/entrer dedans), and then possibly develop, extending to high-frequency caused-motion verbs such as "to throw" (Italian buttare fuori, French jeter bas) and later on to basic manner of locomotion verbs such as "to run" and "to jump". 8In this case, too, we could attempt to define an implicational scale mainly based on criteria such as frequency and acceptability, but also on semantic and pragmatic features (see Table 3). Starting from left to right, this scale orders the types of Verb-particle constructions which can be used in a VF language to express "displacement", i.e. a type of motion where the trajector moves completely from one point to another. The first three cells show respectively path verbs, deictic verbs and verbs expressing caused motion, while cells 4-7 show various types of manner verbs. Manner verbs differ in their availability to be used in constructions which express displacement events. Some are more prone to licensing a directional reading, for instance the ones which express not only an orientation, i.e. removal from a reference point (It. battersela "to scram", sbucare "to come out suddenly, to pop out"), or movement toward a goal (It. avventarsi "to hurl oneself", scagliarsi "to lunge") but also a rapid, often sudden, movement; in some of these verbs, attainment of the goal is even implicit (irrompere "to burst into"). Verbs which express motion on a vertical axis such as arrampicarsi "to climb up" or tuffarsi "to dive" are more compatible with a path reading from a source to a goal than those indicating a movement of a rather aimless sort, that is, a series of movements whose starting point, direction, and end are left unclear (e.g. It. passeggiare "to stroll", girovagare "to ramble, to saunter"). Manner verbs which lexicalize short events, i.e. display punctual or semelfactive aspect (e.g. It. balzare "to jump, to pounce", spuntare "to spring, to peep out"), are more easily interpreted as describing transitions from one location to another than verbs which lexicalize events expressing a larger extent of time. As far as tense is concerned, the data gathered by Kopecka (2009b) show that there is a positive correlation between the use of perfective forms and the encoding of displacement events, whereas imperfective tenses are used mostly in encoding static events. Highly specific manner of motion verbs, such as verbs focusing on the coordination of movements like ballare "to dance", or verbs which express impaired walking (inciampare "to stumble", zoppicare "to hobble, to limp") are less compatible with a displacement reading than verbs of more general meaning like camminare "to walk", correre "to run", scivolare "to slide, to slip".

Post-verbal particles from spatial to aspectual meaning

The use of Post-verbal particles as aspectual markers in a given language, besides their spatial function as path markers, shows that the Verb-Particle Construction is entrenched in its grammatical system. This phenomenon is very frequent in SF languages, like Slavic or Finno-Ugric languages, but is also found in Italian (cf. Iacobini & Masini 2006). Even though Italian does not present a coherent system of actional particles (i.e. particles expressing actional values, especially telic and atelic meanings), there are nonetheless some traces of regularity)9 . One case in point is the emergence of a specific verb-particle construction with via "away" that developed an actional function, expressing telicity, also found for other particles (fuori, giù in example ( 13)). ( 13) It.

tirare "to pull" -TEL tirare fuori "to pull out" + TEL tirare "to pull" -TEL tirare giù "to pull down" + TEL correre "to run" -TEL correre via "to run away" + TEL Quite convincing syntactic evidence of this telicization process is the fact that some verbs, after turning into Verb-Particle Construction, become unaccusative, as shown by the auxiliary shift in ( 14):

(14) It. volare (intransitive, aux. avere "have") > volare via (intransitive, aux.

essere "be") l'uccello ha volato per due ore l'uccello è volato via "The bird flew for two hours" (-TEL) "The bird flew away" (+TEL)

The degree of diffusion of Verb-Particle Constructions expressing actional values can therefore be considered as a strong clue of the emergence of SF patterns.

Pragmatics

Danish, a Satellite-Framed language, uses different verbs to encode a motion event that takes place through transportation means, whereas French shows a tendency to omit such an indication or to encode it using a noun phrase (when it is considered pragmatically relevant). Romance languages tend to avoid adding manner information in an adjunct phrase when that information is implicitly provided, or presupposed, by the context. This explains the awkwardness of sentences (16a-b), which are perfectly grammatical but seem unnatural. However, a sentence like (16c) is perfectly acceptable because a hopping type manner does not constitute the default, or habitual, manner of motion for birds.

(16) a. Fr. Le bateau est arrivé au port en navigant. the boat arrived at the harbour sailing "The boat sailed into the harbour". b. Fr.

L'oiseau est sorti de la cage en volant. the bird is exited from the cage flying "The bird flew out of its cage". c. Fr.

L'oiseau est sorti du nid en sautillant. the bird is exited from.the nest in hopping "The bird hopped out of the nest". (from Pourcel and Kopecka 2006)

Besides, even if hopping is the default manner of motion for rabbits, Italian allows the expression of boundary-crossing events in sentences like (17). Here It is only through a careful investigation of the balance of all the factors playing a role in encoding path that we may assess which is the expected way and which are the possible variations for the encoding of a given event type. We believe that it is only within this perspective that we may fruitfully approach the issue of diachronic change in the typology of motion events.

cf Schoesler, che dice di stare attenti alla differenza tra sistema e uso

  below):

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Transitions from VF to SF and vice-versa.

(

  15) a. Dan. De sejlede ind i Havanabugten. "They sailed into Havana Bay". De kørte ind i Santa Clara. "They drove into Santa Clara". b. Fr. Ils entrèrent dans la baie de La Havane (en bateau). (id) Ils entrèrent dans Santa Clara (en voiture) (id; from Herslund 2005).

( 17 )

 17 It. Appena gli lascio la gabbietta aperta il mio coniglio saltella fuori e viene a curiosare. "As soon as I leave the small cage open my rabbit hops out and comes to look around".

  During the shift from Latin to Romance, there were of course many changes. One notable change is the progressive lexicalization of preverbs(Haverling 2003), with an obvious impact on the encoding of motion events. These lexicalizations brought about different possible changes. Once a "preverb+verb" construct is lexicalized, its semantics changes (i.e. the "Path + Manner" semantics are progressively lost), and most important, the paradigmatic nature of the "preverb+verb" constructs disappears. The examples in Table1illustrate a possible result of this evolution: in Modern French, of the two preverbations of two different Latin verbs (eo "to go" and nato "to swim"), only one combination is attested; and it does not have a spatial meaning anymore, but only kept the figurative meaning (already attested in Latin). The situation is quite similar for other Romance languages, as shown below for Spanih and Italian 4 .

	"Julie swims across the river" 3
	Latin verb	subeo "go under"	adeo "go towards"		subnato "swim under (water)"	adnato "swim towards"
	Outcomes in Romance	Fr. subir, It. subire "go up" "suffer", Sp. subir		No lexical outcome
			Romance (semantic) equivalents:
	French	descendre	aller vers qch.	nager sous qqch.		nager vers qqch.
	Italian	scendere (giù)	andare verso qc.	nuotare sotto qc.		nuotare verso qc.
	Spanish	bajar	ir hacia alg.	nadar por debajo de alg.		nadar hacia alg.
	(2a) Lat.	Iuli-a	flumen	tra-nat-at
		Julie-N.SG	river.A.SG	across-swim-PRES.3SG
	(2b) Fr.	Julie	traverse		le	fleuve	en	nageant
		Julie	cross. PRES.3SG	the	river	by	swimm. PRES.PARTP
	(2c) Fr.	Julie	traverse		le	fleuve	à	la	nage
		Julie	cross. PRES.3SG	the	river	at	the	swimming
	(2d) Fr.	Julie	traverse		le	fleuve
		Julie	cross. PRES.3SG	the	river

Table

1

: Latin prefixed verbs expressing direction and manner of motion and some outcomes in Romance Many such constructs (preverb+verb) expressing direction have been lost in the transition from Latin to Romance. From a semasiological point of view, the equivalents in Modern French (see Table

1

) illustrate quite well the typological shift. The Latin preverb+verb constructs were partially replaced by lexemes which conflate the Path component in the verb root. As illustrated in (3) and (

  5) a. Fr. monter, It. montare, Cat. muntar, Occ. montar, Rhaeto-R. muntar "to mount, to ascend", from Lat. *montare from mons, montis "mountain, mount"; Fr. hausser, It. alzare, Sard. artziai, arziare "to lift, to raise", from Lat. *altiare from altus "high" b. Port., Cat. avançar, Sp. avanzar, Fr. avancer, It. avanzare "to advance, to go forward", from Lat. *abantiare from abante "forward, ahead"The fact that such innovations arose sometimes as early as Late Latin is an important point: as has been shown in recent research, the SF > VF transition has been anything but abrupt. Multiple clues indicate that this transition was rather gradual: for one thing, Late Latin already shows signs of reinforced VF

strategies, with verbs expressing Path in the root (cf. examples in 5) and verbparticle constructions (cf. examples in (6a-e), from Iacobini 2009); for another, Medieval Romance languages seem less clearly VF than Modern Romance (see for French, a.o., Kopecka 2009a, Dufresne, Dupuis & Tremblay 2003, 2008).

  ) are reported examples of colloquial sentences where Romance languages use a manner of motion verb complemented by a path phrase expressing direction toward a goal.

	(9)	a.	Sp. Juan bailó hacia la puerta. "John danced towards the door" (from
		Aske 1989).
	b.

Fr. Il courut / marcha vers moi. "He ran / walked towards me" (from Cummins 1996).

Scholars show agreement around the marginal use of manner verb in constructions expressing attainment of goal in the majority of Romance languages, although some exceptions to this restriction have been found in Spanish and French (cf. ex. 10).

(10) Sp. y nadó hasta la otra orilla, donde comió "and s/he swam up to the other bank, where s/he ate" (from Martínez Vázquez 2001).

Fr. Max sauta sur la table "Max jumped onto the table" (from Cummins

Table 2 :

 2 Table 2 below provides a hierarchy for the degree of relevance of constructions with manner verbs in languages which do not have inherently directional particles. Manner verbs and boundary-crossing in a Verb-Framed language

	1	2		3			4		5
	Giovanni corre	Giovanni corre	Giovanni è corso	Giovanni		Giovanni
	sul prato	verso casa		a	casa	(a	irrompe in casa	striscia a letto
	"John runs on	"John	runs	preparare	la	"John	bursts	"John	crawls
	the lawn"	towards home"	cena)			into the house"	onto his bed"
				"John ran home	(lit. "John burst	(lit.	"John
				(to cook dinner)"	in home")		crawls at bed")
				(lit. "John is run

Table 3 :

 3 Implication scale of Verb-Particle expressions expressing displacement

  again, we may consider examples like the one in (17) as stronger, that is, more significant exceptions of manner verb usage in VF languages. A tentative ordering of the possible ways of expressing boundary-crossing events is proposed in table 4. The left end of the scale illustrates a typical VF pattern, the right end a typical SF pattern, and cells 2, 3 and 4 illustrate intermediate stages.

	1	2		3		4		5
	l'uccello esce	l'uccello esce	l'uccello	l'uccello	l'uccello vola
	dal nido	dal	nido	saltella		saltella fuori	fuori dal nido
	(lit.) "the bird	saltellando		uscendo	dal	dal nido		(lit.) "the bird
	exits from the	(lit.) "the bird	nido		(lit.) "the bird	flies out of the
	nest"	exits from the	(lit.) "the bird	hops out of the	nest"
		nest hopping"	hops	exiting	nest"
				from the nest"
	Path Verb	Path Verb		No	default	No	default	Default
	No Manner	+ No default	Manner V	Manner V +	Manner V
		Manner V		+ Path Verb	Path Satellite	+ Path Satellite

Table 4 :

 4 Different possible expressions of boundary-crossing events in VF and SF languages 5. CONCLUSION

Different theoretical views -cf. Zubizzareta & Oh (2007), Rappaport & Levin (2010)agree on the incompatibility of manner and path in the same verb; however, this assumption is not uncontroversial, cf. Goldberg (2010) for a theoretical appraisal, andZlatev & Yangklang (2004), Iacobini (2010) for data respectively on Thai and Italian.

Sentence (2d) is certainly the most natural way to say 'Julie swims across the river' in French, but this is not necessarily its default interpretation. The translation holds in certain contexts only.

The verb adire in Italian is only used in legal register with a specialized meaning "to take legal steps".

Commentaire [BF1] : non avresti un esempio da mettere qui?

Some hints on intratypological variation may be found in Filipovič(2007).

We share the position ofCroft et al. (2010: 210), according to which "It would be much more interesting if we could find cross-linguistic universals by examining the intralinguistic variation in the encoding of complex events, instead of treating them as exceptions that reduce a 'universal' to a 'tendency'."

A good example in a medieval text is the following, where the contrast between the boundary-crossing verb (with particle but without manner) and the manner verb (without directional particle) is quite obvious: Des que cil furent fort issu, Tuit cil de l'ost sunt la curu "As soon as these people had come out (lit. had exited outside), all the soldiers ran towards them (lit. ran there)" (Brut, Wace, 12 th century).Commentaire [BF2] : qui non sono sicuro che si capisce bene.

It is also very common for SF languages to develop a post-verbal particle pattern starting with so-called double-framing constructions ('double marking' in the terminology ofBohnemeyer et al. 2007: 512, 514). In such constructions, the path is expressed twice, once as a detached satellite and once as part of the verb (cf. Latin exit foras, lit. "he out-goes outside").

A more frequent and systematic use of post-verbal particles with aspectual or actional values is found in some Romance varieties of the North-East of Italy (cf. Cordin 2008).


Bert Cornillie

Cognitive, inte ractional and textual functions of modal marke rs

Modality

The category of modality in the general sense of the speaker"s attitude towards what (s)he says, is one of those categories that "establish a relationship between the speaker and his enunciation" [START_REF] Benveniste | L"appareil formel de l"énonciation[END_REF][START_REF] Benveniste | L"appareil formel de l"énonciation[END_REF]). As was made clear by Palmer (1986: 2) this notion is quite vague and leaves open a number of intepretations As a consequence, a number of different definitions of modality have been proposed in the literature. Four main approaches can be recognized: (i) Modality is defined as the category expressing the attitude of the speaker towards the propositional content of his utterance. This is the approach inherited by Greek and Latin grammatical trad itions. This large definition has been accepted by [START_REF] Bally | Linguistique générale et linguistique française[END_REF], and is widely shared (cf. [START_REF] Bybee | The Evolution of Grammar[END_REF][START_REF] Gosselin | Les modalités en français. La validation des représentations[END_REF]).

(ii) Modality is defined as the category qualifying the factuality of an utterance. This is the position of Palmer (2001) and [START_REF] Narrog | Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories Amsterdam & Philadelphia[END_REF]. (iii)Modality is concerned with the opposition of possibility and necessity. This conception, inherited by modal logics has been largely adopted in linguistics (see Van der Auwera et Plungian (1998: 80), among others). (iv) Modality expresses the subjectivity of the speaker [START_REF] Lyons | Semantics[END_REF][START_REF] Palmer | Mood and modality[END_REF], Halliday 1970).

In what follows we will adopt a large definition of modality and define it as the category that refers to the broad domain of attitudinal qualifications, i.e. qualifications that convey the speaker"s stance toward, or the speaker"s evaluation of what is being said.

The most common qualifications of modality involve epistemic modality, evidentiality and deontic/dynamic modality. Epistemic modality stands for "the evaluation of the chances that a certain hypothetical state of affairs under consideration (or some aspect of it) will occur, is occurring or has occurred in a possible world" (Nuyts 2001: 21). Evidentiality then refers to the "encoding of the speaker"s (type of) grounds for making a speech act" (Faller 2002: 2). Both qualifications are traditionally considered to be proposition-oriented. Deontic modality, by contrast, is event-oriented, but can nevertheless be seen as an attitudinal category in that it involves "an indication of the degree to which the "assessor" (typically, but not necessarily, the speaker) can commit him/herself to the state of affairs in terms of certain principles external to that state o f affairs, in this case "moral" principles"" (cf Nuyts, Byloo & Diepeveen 2005:8; see also [START_REF] Nuyts | Modality: Overview and linguistic issues[END_REF]. These external principles are the forces behind the permission and obligation readings associated with deontic modality.

We take the whole super-category of modality as the object of our analysis, even though we are quite aware of the fact that important distinctions exist between epistemic modality, deontic modality and evidentiality which have been thoroughly discussed --after [START_REF] Lyons | Semantics[END_REF][START_REF] Palmer | Mood and modality[END_REF][START_REF] Haan | Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting Boundaries[END_REF][START_REF] Plungian | The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space[END_REF], Cornillie 2007a, 2009[START_REF] Nuyts | The 'one-commitment-per-clause' principle and the cognitive status of qualificational categories[END_REF][START_REF] Squartini | The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance[END_REF], 2004, 2009[START_REF] Boye | Epistemic Meaning: A Cross-Linguistic and Cognitive Study[END_REF].

Modal markers

The early literature has mainly been concerned with modal auxiliaries. Most modality accounts deal with their cognitive-semantic definition and their formal integration within a grammatical paradigm [START_REF] Lyons | Semantics[END_REF][START_REF] Coates | The semantics of the modal auxiliaries[END_REF][START_REF] Palmer | Mood and modality[END_REF]van der Auwera & Dendale 2001;Dendale & van der Auwera 2001). Nowadays, research on other modal expression types has become increasingly important, cf. [START_REF] Nuyts | Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitivepragmatic perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Simon-Vandenbergen | The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs[END_REF][START_REF] Squartini | Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian[END_REF]. [START_REF] Nuyts | Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitivepragmatic perspective[END_REF] monograph on epistemic modality compares epistemic modal adjectives, adverbs and auxiliaries and accounts for the cognitive and linguistic differences between them. In the same vein, [START_REF] Patrick & Coltier | Discourse rapporté et évidentialité. Comparaison du conditionnel epistémique et des constructions en selon SN[END_REF] compare the epistemic conditional and adverbial constructions of reportive evidentiality in French. The special issue of the Italian Journal of Linguistics edited by Mario [START_REF] Squartini | Investigating a grammatical category and its lexical correlates[END_REF] gathers a number of papers focussing on the lexical marking of evidentiality in European languages [START_REF] Pusch | Is there evidence for evidentiality in Gascony Occitan?[END_REF][START_REF] Haan | Raising as grammaticalization: the case of Germanic SEEM-verbs[END_REF], Cornillie 2007b[START_REF] Pietrandrea | The grammatical nature of some epistemic-evidential adverbs in spoken Italian[END_REF][START_REF] Wiemer | Lexical markers of evidentiality in Lithuanian[END_REF][START_REF] Ramat | The coding of evidentiality: a comparative look at Georgian and Italian[END_REF][START_REF] Olbertz | Dizque in Mexican Spanish: the subjectification of reportative meaning[END_REF][START_REF] Dendale | A semantic description of French lexical evidential markers and the classification of evidentials[END_REF][START_REF] Aikhenvald | Information source and evidentiality: what can we conclude?[END_REF][START_REF] Squartini | Investigating a grammatical category and its lexical correlates[END_REF]. [START_REF] Squartini | Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian[END_REF] shows that the study of the lexical expressions of evidentiality is crucial for determining a consistent classificational model of evidentiality as a linguistic category. [START_REF] Simon-Vandenbergen | The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs[END_REF] have studied in an important monograph a specific set of modal adverbs:, i.e. certainty adverbs. The hypothesis that deontic modality is expressed by voice has been also put forward [START_REF] Paradis | This beauty should drink well for 10-12 years: a note on recommendations as semantic middles[END_REF].

A number of analyses give an unified account of the semantic and syntactic scope of both modal auxiliaries and other modal markers [START_REF] Hengeveld | Clause structure and modality in Functional Grammar[END_REF][START_REF] Hengeveld | Illocution, mood and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish[END_REF][START_REF] Hengeveld | Layers and operators in Functional Grammar[END_REF][START_REF] Dik | The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause[END_REF][START_REF] Pietrandrea | Epistemic Modality. Functional Properties and the Italian System[END_REF], 2007[START_REF] Boye | Epistemic Meaning: A Cross-Linguistic and Cognitive Study[END_REF][START_REF] Narrog | Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories Amsterdam & Philadelphia[END_REF][START_REF] Alcazar | Grammatical Coding of Lexical Evidentiality in a Spanish-to-Basque Parallel Corpus[END_REF].

The lexical vs. the grammatical status of modal markers

A lot of attention has been paid to the question whether, in line with tense markers, the categories of evidentiality and epistemic modality should fulfil the known criteria of grammatical categories or whether they can be seen as a broad functional category. [START_REF] Aikhenvald | Evidentiality[END_REF] and [START_REF] Lazard | On the grammaticalization of evidentiality[END_REF] are perhaps the most extreme voices in the debate in that their approach to evidentiality is deliberately limited to paradigms of obligatory evidential markers. This option has the benefit of clarity but means a severe restriction to the study of evidentiality. A much broader view is presented by [START_REF] Squartini | Investigating a grammatical category and its lexical correlates[END_REF] and colleagues in the guest edition of the Italian Journal of Linguistics cited above. This special issue focuses on lexical markers of evidentiality. Many of its contributions argue that (i) lexical markers form a continuum with grammatical modal markers along a grammaticalization path; (ii) the semantic classification of lexical markers can be refined on the basis of their degree of grammaticalization.

When speaking of lexical markers, the question also arises as to how we can delimit the borders of what is considered lexical in order to better determine grammar. From a functional point of view, [START_REF] Boye | Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization[END_REF], following [START_REF] Boye | Complement-taking predicates. Usage and linguistic structure[END_REF], answer this question quite satisfactorily. According to them, grammatical expressions belong to a (limited) number of cross-linguistically relevant substance domains and, crucially, involve secondary predication with respect to the main predication, the latter being the lexical part of the linguistic system. From this point of view, evidential and epistemic sentence adverbs such as reportedly and apparently, which are considered lexical elements in [START_REF] Squartini | Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian[END_REF], and parenthetica l constructions such as it seems and I think are considered as grammatical elements "in so far as their meanings are inherently non-addressable" [START_REF] Boye | Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization[END_REF], for which they provide a series of tests. Boye & Harder"s (2007, 2009) account is a step forward in the direction of a solution for the debate on grammatical vs. lexical modality and evidentiality: they not only define secondariness more precisely than most of the tradition, their model also allows for accounting the (layered) variety of uses of a linguistic expression. As they write:

[…] Secondariness is the fundamental property associated with grammatical status: grammaticalization occurs in all and only those cases where an element becomes coded as secondary in relation to another, thereby creating both a new, less prominent element, and a dependency relation with the associated primary element. Together, this provides a usage-based definition of grammatical status and grammaticalization. (Boye and Harder 2009: 38) The difference with other views of the lexical vs. grammatical division is that Boye and Harder attribute a crucial role to the discourse status of the grammatical linguistic element, which is always seen in relation to some other linguistic element. At the same time they recognise that "secondariness is reminiscent of the difference between bleached vs. fully lexical meaning, and the difference between having "main predication" status vs. a more "discourse-pragmatic" character [START_REF] Traugott | From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization[END_REF][START_REF] Brinton | Lexicalization and language change[END_REF]Traugott 2005: 136-140)".

Building on Boye and Harder"s (2009) recent functional redefinition of grammatical meaning, the contributors to this volume have focused on any marker encoding modality as secondary, ancillary information in discourse: modal verbs, tense, mood, but also adverbs, modal discourse markers, as well as larger constructions.

The polyfunctionality of modal markers

It is cross-linguistically attested that modal auxiliaries, in comparison with other modal expressions, are quite polyfunctional. English can, may and must, and their equivalents in other languages, combine epistemic (evidential), dynamic and deontic readings which vary according to the contexts of use.

The polyfunctionality of modal markers seems to be motivated by the complex communicative strategies of the speaker / writer and their co-participants. As for the speaker, Coates (1987: 130) observes that, "[i]n informal conversation, where participants are trying to achieve simultaneously the goals of (a) saying something on the topic under discussion; (b) being sensitive to the face-needs of the various addressees; (c) qualifying assertions to avoid total commitment to a point of view which they may want to withdraw from; (d) qualifying assertions to encourage the flow of discussion; (e) creating cohesive text, then it does not seem feasible to conclude "this form expresses x and that form expresses y""

The question arises as to which of the other modal markers testify to some kind of polyfunctionality. Adjectives can have epistemic and dynamic readings [START_REF] Lyons | Semantics[END_REF]. Evidential verbs, e.g. parecer, can have a hearsay and an inferential reading (Cornillie 2007a). Recent research has shown that epistemic modal adverbs can also be used in different hearer-oriented communicative strategies (cf. [START_REF] Simon-Vandenbergen | The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs[END_REF]Pietrandrea 2009;Cornillie 2010a,b). Unlike modal auxiliaries, modal adverbs do not usually convey dynamic or deontic readings. By contrast, they can have slightly different, post-epistemic, readings in talk-ininteraction.

(5). Perhaps you wanna help me?

Hence, future research will also have to focus on the specific contexts of use of modal expressions and how they correspond to specific communicative needs. This brings us to the next step, namely, the shift of attention from the set of modal markers and their structural vs. semantic status to the interplay of speech participants, i.e. the interactional dimension.

Towards a textual and interactional account

Interactional linguistics

Interaction is a crucial point in the analysis of modality. A number of modal markers seem to derive from specific dialogical, i.e. interactional, contexts [START_REF] Rossari | L'énonciation dans tous ses états, Mélanges offerts à H. Nølke à l'occasion de ses soixante ans[END_REF][START_REF] Rossari | Constructions of the type la cause/la raison/lapreuve + utterance: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?[END_REF]. Also, modal markers have interactional effects that have been studied within the framework of Interactional Linguistics (Kärkkäinen 2003, amongst others).

Interactional linguistics is an approach that takes into consideration how the interaction between speech participants shapes language (see Ochs, Schegloff and Thompson 1996 for an overview). Within this field of linguistics, Conversation Analysis (CA) offers an accurate description of the active and dynamic structure of conversation. The origins of CA are in the field of sociology, which explains why it has only recently entered in discussion with other empirical human sciences such as psychology and linguistics. Nowadays the focus of several domains of language sciences is increasingly on interaction (cf. Enfield & Levinson 2006) In a special issue of Discourse Studies, Schegloff (2008: 154) differentiates between conversation analysis and cognitive sciences arguing that CA pays crucial attention to ""multiple passes" for each order of organization that is inescapably implicated whenever "talk in interaction" --actual or potential--is the state the participants find themselves in". Cognitive sciences, by contrast, are involved in the direct relation between individual intentions and thoughts and the utterances a speaker produces, but lacks a social dimension.

The "multiple passes" approach is also useful for the analysis of modal qualifications. As the interactional approach has challenged cognitive psychologists to look at the dynamics of interaction, now it also challenges linguists to see modal markers as something more than the speaker"s own evaluation of the proposition and to take into account the interactional context of use. From both a discourse-functional and a cognitive-functional point of view, it is worthwhile examining to what extent specific modal and evaluative expressions or specific question types are motivated by the sequential context of interactional discourse, hence, by its turn constructions.

CA-studies have shown that a speaker can display "shared knowledge" with another speaker by completing another"s utterance. That is, speakers can show recipients that they "know what"s on each other"s minds" (Sacks 1992: 147). The question then arises as whether specific modal markers appear in the immediate context of turn completion? And if so, are these markers used to confirm alignment with the co-participant or do they serve to sollicit alignment (cf Haddington 2004: 107)?

Interestingly, interactionally oriented studies of modality often use the term "stance", which is much broader and also includes nonlinguistic expressions (e.g. pauses, gesture, face, eye gaze) in addition to linguistic expressions (e.g. intonation, tag-questions) (cf. Kärkkäinen 2002;Englebretson 2007). Hence, a first contribution of interactional studies is that the focus on (epistemic) stance has directed the attention to new linguistic and communicative phenomena at stake. This widening of the scope of the analysis entails a couple of new questions. There is, for instance, the usual impossibility to question epistemic/evidential markers. If interrogative mood and modal markers combine, does this mean that the interrogative changes the modal expression by using the utterance as a whole as stance-taking (see [START_REF] Keisanen | Patterns of stance taking. Negative yes/no interrogatives and tag questions in American English conversation[END_REF])? Interrogative mood involves specific prosodic patterns. In this context, it is also important to examine to what extent modality interacts with prosody and embodiment (see [START_REF] Goodwin | Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia[END_REF].

The textual dimension

Another extension of the analysis of modality concerns the textual dimension. Modal markers may evolve from a purely qualificational function towards textual and rhetorical functions. Interestingly, they may have functions similar to those of connectives [START_REF] Traugott | Regularity in Semantic Change[END_REF], confirmation markers, adversative markers, continuity and causal markers [START_REF] Simon-Vandenbergen | The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs[END_REF], and markers of argumentative moves.

It is therefore also crucial to look beyond the sentence. In a recent study of the "higher level dependency" Navajo marker -go, [START_REF] Mithun | The extension of dependency beyond the sentence[END_REF] writes: "An awareness of processes of extension beyond the boundaries of the sentence can alert us to structures we might otherwise miss. They can also contribute to our understanding of the reasons behind certain basic morphological and syntactic patterns" (Mithun 2008: 113).

In line with this awareness, [START_REF] Simon-Vandenbergen | The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs[END_REF] propose a "syntagmatic approach" to the analysis of the adverbs of modal certainty which aims at exploring the entire context of occurrence of modal markers: "We have to go beyond the sentence to look for clues regarding interpersonal relations and information structuring factors which have prompted the use of adverbs. Logical and rhetorical relations which are expressed within the sentence in one case may indeed be expressed between sentences in other cases" (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007: 81-82).

A number of studies included in this special issue will observe the behaviour of modal markers beyond the sentence level and will examine the functions that modal markers develop in the construction of the text.

The structure of the issue

This Special Issue is structured in two parts according to the construction extension of the modal markers (verb-level, propositional and discourse level).

The first part contains three contributions that focus on constructions centred around the verb. This apparently classical topic in the study of modality, is approached in a new fashion by the authors in that they try to spell out interactional functions of modal constructions. This leads to an important revision not only of the meaning of the single markers analyzed but also sheds new light on the relation between modal categories (evidentiality and epistemicity, epistemic ity and deonticity, modality and voice).

Mario Squartini studies the values of the epistemic future in Italian. This marker has a "conjectural meaning", which some scholars consider purely epistemic, whereas other scholars consider evidential. The analysis of this modal value is therefore crucial not only for a semantic definition of the epistemic future, but also for an appraisal of the relationship between epistemic modality and evidentiality. By focussing on the concessive extension of the conjectural future, Squartini shows that this marker is to be regarded as a marker of factuality, which belongs in the evidential domain, rather than in the epistemic domain. Squartini also conducts a pragmatic analysis of the uses of the concessive future and shows that this marker is used to express intersubjective knowledge based on what has been uttered in the speech situation or on the joint direct perception of the speaker and her interlocutor. His pragmatic analysis reinforces thus the evidential interpretation of the future and contributes to plead for an inclusion of conjectures within the domain of evidentiality.

Andrea Rocci proposes to formalize the procedural meaning of Italian modal verbs by using the description apparatus of argumentation theory. Rocci focuses on two constructions of the Italian necessity modal dovere ("must") associated with an epistemic interpretation, DEVE E and DOVREBBE E . as they are employed in a large journalistic corpus. He shows that these quasi-synonymous constructions impose indeed different constraints on the saturation of their conversational backgrounds B and that they differ with respect to several dimensions: (a) the level of the relation they directly signal and which, in turn, allows to infer an argumentative relation, (b) the possible types of reasoning on which the argument is based and (c) the epistemic evaluation and evidential source of the premises making up the conversational background. Rocci disentangles the basic values of the two constructions. DEVE E is analyzed as an inferential evidential modal selecting a conversational background combining an epistemic component and a doxastic component, both deictically tied to the speaker and the moment of utterance. DOVREBBE E is analyzed as a deonticallybased modal involving a double conversational background consisting of the conjunction of an alethic or deontic modal base and a conditional restriction to be saturated by a set of non-factual propositions. The conditional mood of the construction imposes a disjunction between the set of conditio nal restrictions and the set of speaker"s belief. This makes it possible to attribute a reportive evidential reading to this deontic modal construction. Thus, Rocci"s approach sheds new light on the possible relation between deontic and evidential meanings.

Tanja Mortelmans conducts a contrastive analysis of modal verbs in three Germanic languages: English, German and Dutch. She shows that the English modals present a higher frequency as compared to their German and Dutch counterparts. This difference in frequency is explained with the fact that the English modals present a number of inferential and intersubjective functions that in Dutch and German are usually conveyed by markers other than modal verbs.

The second part is concerned with the constructional nature of modal markers, involving different degrees of complexity. Modal markers can be regarded as conventional pairs of form and modal meaning located at any level of linguistic structure. Three papers of this part focus on modal meanings conveyed by complex constructions (Mithun and Rossari analyze constructions detectable in the final position of the utterance. Kärkkäinen studies a construction typically occurring in the initial position); whereas Cuenca & Marín"s paper takes the analysis of modal markers beyond the strictly proposition-oriented view of modality, by examining extensions of modal markers evolving into discourse markers.

Marianne Mithun proposes a classification of the functions of tag constructions in Mohawk, based on the analysis of their syntactic and prosodic properties as well as on the observation of the typical listener"s response. Mithun shows that besides a well recognized epistemic function, tag constructions serve interactive and textual functions. In some uses the epistemic function is foregrounded: the tag serves primarily to indicate reduced commitment on the part of the speaker. In others the interactive function takes priority: the speaker may be quite certain of the truth of the proposition, but wish to heighten the involvement of the listener in the conversation. By using tag constructions, the speaker invites the listener to share the setting of a scene, the establishing of a topic or the highlighting of crucial points in a narrative. These constructions show functional extensions beyond both epistemic modality and interactional strategies, in that they serve discourse structuring functions. Mithun both provides a crucial explanation of the relation between interaction and text structuring functions of basically modal markers and introduces a new parameter of formal classification of modal constructions by taking into account the response of the listener in her analysis.

Corinne Rossari conducts a syntactic and semantic analysis of three French evidential constructions: faut croire (roughly 'one should believe'), on dirait (roughly 'one would say') and paraît ('it seems'), which typically occur in a detached sentencefinal position. She highlights the role played by the syntactic position in determining the evidential value of the markers under examination. Markers occurring in a detached final position may take the value of confirmations on an assessment. They condense in other words a polyphony that can be interpreted as a general indication of indirect shared knowledge. The evidential value of each construction therefore is described as the result of the composition of its lexical meaning with the semantic interpretation of its syntactic position.

Elise Kärkkäinen examines the occurrences of the construction I thought typically occurring in the sentence-initial position in the Santa Barbara Corpus of American English. She shows that this construction is regularly associated with a small number of "conversational formats" such as the introduction of an explicit evaluative or epistemic stance, the change in the epistemic stance of the speaker, the report of thoughts of the current speaker, the expression of an affective stance involving disbelief, astonishment or impatience. A formal analysis shows that these formats are each characterized by a reduced number of syntactic and prosodic properties and that body conduct (especially the speaker"s eye-gaze) also plays in role in determining the stance taking.

In their study of clar "clear", María Josep Cuenca and María Josep Marín show that the study of modal markers can benefit from an analysis of the relationship and overlap with discourse markers. That is, they indicate that some markers e xpress evidentiality but also bracket units of talk, as discourse markers typically do. Cuenca and Marín propose a cline from a prototypically modal meaning to a prototypically structural meaning and characterise some of the intermediate areas by describing the use of clar/és clar in spoken Catalan, and by briefly illustrating some uses of és que as a fixed modal marker.

Combined approaches to modality

Each paper of the proposed issue is the result of a deliberate combination of approaches to some aspect of modality. Below we present succinctly the main results of this collective work: Some authors focus on how specific grammatical properties of modal markers respond to interactional needs (Mithun, Rossari, Kärkkäinen). Other authors propose to refine the semantic description of modal markers by taking into account their interactional properties (Squartini, Rocci, Mortelmans, Cuenca & Marín).

New attention is paid to the reaction of the hearer to the modalized utterance. The analysis of this response is taken into account in the functional definition of the modal markers under examination (in particular by Mithun, Rossari). Usually neglected formal aspects of modal constructions, such as their prosody or their syntactic patterning are also considered (Mithun).

The composite approach adopted by the contributors leads not only to a redefinition of modal markers, but also brings about a reappraisal of the general typology of modal qualifications (Squartini, Rocci, Mithun).

This special issue stems from the workshop "Lexical and Grammatical Modality at Work", within the framework of the 42 nd annual meeting of the European Society of Linguistics (SLE

2009), which took place at the University of Lisbon in September 2009.

BIO

Bert Cornillie is a tenured assistant professor of Spanish linguistics at the University of Leuven. His research interests are modality, grammaticalizat ion and (inter)subjectification. Over the last years he has been focusing on the relation between speaker hearer interaction and the structure of language, i.e. the organization of grammar fro m the point of view of discourse. He is co -supervisor of two projects of the Research Foundation Flanders (one of them dealing with tag question) and is co -supervisor of the GOA project on "The mult iple functional load of grammatical signs in text construction and processes of language change" (2011-2016), sponsored by the Research Council of the University of Leuven.

Paola Piet randrea is researcher at the University Roma TRE (Italy) and associate researcher at the Lattice -CNRS Lab (France). Her areas of interests include semantics, syntax, discourse, and their interaction, as well as spoken discourse and corpus linguistics . She wrote a book on epistemic modality (Epistemic Modality. Functional properties and the Italian System, Benjamins 2005). She has published articles (Cognitive Linguistics, Langue Française, Language Sciences, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, Italian Journal of Linguistics) on modal constructions in discourse.