5. Analysis
5.5. Pragmatic functions of seem and appear
65
The correlation between the sense partitions and type of evidence support the findings from the Semantic Mirrors-Analysis that the different senses of seem and appear can be ranked according to how evidential or how epistemic they are (5.2.6.). They range from referring only to direct evidence and showing a high degree of evidentiality on the left of the scale, to indicating personal judgement and a high degree of epistemic modality on the far right of the scale, as illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Sense groups and degree of evidentiality and epistemic modality.
Both translation pairs with fremstå as a correspondence for appear (Group 2A) refer to direct attested visual evidence and the sense group is thus placed on the left-hand side of the scale. The sense group with arte seg som (glossed as 'take form as' or 'pretend to be') as a correspondence for seem (Group 2S) also denotes direct attested visual evidence and is placed on the left, with high degree of evidentiality.
The largest sense group for seem (Group 2S), of which the largest sense group for appear (Group 1A) is a subset, refers to direct, indirect and inferred evidence. The correspondence fremgå, which was determined by the semantic Mirror analysis as being inferential based on observable evidence, has ' Indirect inferring reasoning' as its source of evidence according to the contrastive analysis. This source of evidence has a strong component of epistemic modality (2.7.), and the sense group is on the far end of the scale. The third sense group for seem (Group 3S) is somewhat heterogeneous with respect to its inferential source, in that four translation pairs have no evidence/personal judgement, four translation pairs are inferences based on reasoning, and two translation pairs are inferences based on result, which means that 70 % of the members of this sense group indicate epistemic assessment, placing it on the far end of the scale.
66
Table 5. Pragmatic functions of appear and seem, raw frequencies and percentages.
Appear Seem
Hedging 28 67 % 192 71 %
Stance 4 9 % 69 26 %
Politeness marker Other
- 10
- 24 %
4 4
1 % 1 %
Total 42 100 % 269 ~100 %
5.5.1. Hedging
The most common function of seem and appear is hedging. To hedge is to communicate a lack of commitment to the truth value of the proposition and reduce the illocutionary force of the utterance (2.6.3.). In 67 % of the sentences with appear and 71 % of the sentences with seem, hedging is the pragmatic function of the two verbs. A closer look at the data shows that hedging in translation pairs with appear is for the most part associated with direct attested evidence (68 % refer to direct attested evidence). Hedges with seem refers to direct attested evidence in less than a third (32 %) of the sentences.
Different types of hedges are present in my material. Examples of adaptors (94), (95), )96) adaptors (52) and (53) and modifiers are discussed below. One subtype of hedging that is not specifically mentioned in the literature, but is quite frequent in my material, is when seem and appear are used to signal that what follows is an exaggeration or a metaphor and should not be taken literally.
Adaptors
In (94), (95) and (96) below, seem and appear signal that the speaker does not have enough evidence to make a categorical statement, and that the shared knowledge in the proposition can be
negotiated. Prototypical adaptors are comment clauses with seem, which are excluded from my material, and constructions with seem and appear plus like or as if/as though, which are also excluded, since these construction types do not make up my core data (see section 4.5.) This means that although they are interesting, they will not be commented on any further. The examples below are other constructions in which seem and appear function as adaptors:
(94) She fell silent for a moment, then seemed to make up her mind to something. (MW1) Hun ble stille et øyeblikk, så lot det til at hun bestemte seg for noe. (MW1T)
(She became silent for a moment, then it seemed that she made up her mind about something.)
(95) This analysis seemed to cheer her, and she stirred her coffee with a new access of energy. (MD1)
Det så ut til at denne analysen muntret henne opp, og hun rørte i kaffen sin med ny energi. (MD1T)
(It looked as if this analysis cheered her up, and she stirred her coffee with new energy.)
67
(96) It appears to have" — he hesitated — "five outpouchings, if this is the word." (OS1) Det virker som at den har" — han nølte "fem utposninger, om det er ordet." (OS1T) ("It appears that it has" – he hesitated – "five outpouchings, if that is the word."
In (94) the speaker is hesitant to state with 100 percent certainty what is on someone else's mind, hence the hedging. The evidence is present in the English sentence ('she fell quiet') and the scope of the hedge is the speaker's interpretation of the evidence. In (95) the evidence is also present in the English original sentence (the observation of someone stirring the coffee with new energy) and the hedge applies to the speaker's interpretation of the evidence. In the latter case, the uncertainty applies to several factors, one is whether she really was cheered up, the other questions whether it was the analysis that cheered her. The shared knowledge can be negotiated.
(96) is an interesting example, because appear in the English original clearly hedges the otherwise categorical statement of the number of outpouchings. As such it would be a hedge on the speech act to weaken the illocutionary force of the speech act, in this case the declaration (see section 3.5.2.) It may also be a hedge on the choice of expression (outpouchings), in which case it would be a
propositional hedge. The choice of appear implies that the statement is backed up by observations (visual evidence) but the speaker is still not willing to communicate absolute certainty. The reference to evidence construes the shared knowledge. At the same time, in the English original at least, the speaker displays a lack of commitment to the truth of the proposition. The Norwegian
correspondences for these kinds of hedges are typically the correspondences: late til, se ut som/til, virke som, which all emphasize the evidential aspect of this type of hedge. In other words, this type of hedge seems to be more frequently associated with seem and appear as evidentials.
Modifiers
There are a few examples in my material where seem or appear signal loose interpretations, but this does not seem to be a frequent type of hedge when seem and appear occur with a to-infinitive clause or a that-clause, which form the basis for my analysis. (97) might be an example of how seem functions as a hedge and lessens the speaker's commitment to the truth value of the proposition by being vague, but the sentence itself consists of so many vague expressions ('no one', 'be around' and 'thing') that the vagueness of the sentence does not necessarily have to do with seem.
(97) No one else seemed to be around to notice a thing. (DF1) Det var visst ingen andre som hadde sett opptrinnet. (DF1T) (There was [modal particle] no one else who had seen the incident.)
Hedges that signal indeterminateness and loose interpretations to reduce the speaker's commitment to the truth of the propositional content only occur with seem in my material.
Other modifiers typically display uncertainty and doubt (98) and (99). In (98) the speaker displays uncertainty and doubt as to whether he has interpreted the mood of his fellow dinner guest correctly. The hedge pertains to the accuracy of his interpretation. In (99), observed evidence is implied (the speaker signals that he has heard first names being widely used), but he still conveys uncertainty with respect to the conclusion drawn on the basis of the observation.
68
(98) Mme Wyatt, with whom I was à côté, seemed to enjoy it, or at least to relish the salmon. (JB1)
Ikke for det, det smakte helt utmerket, litt fantasiløst, bare ... mme Wyatt, som jeg satt à cote med, lot til å like maten, i det minste laksen. (JB1T)
(…Mme Wyatt, with whom I sat a á côté, seemed to like the food, at least the salmon.)
(99) In spite of the exalted status, in anyone's estimation, of her employers,
it appeared that they were all on Christian name terms here, Davina and Harvey and Naomi and Brenda. (RR1)
Til tross for den høye status som alle og enhver tilla herskapet, lot det til at alle var på fornavn — Davina og Harry og Naomi og Brenda. (RR1T)
(Despite the elevated status that everyone credited the employers with, it appeared that everyone was on Christian name terms – Davina and Harry and Naomi and Brenda.)
Both examples above are inferences. With seem, there are 45 hedges that co-occur with the evidence type 'inferred reasoning', 41 sentences with seem in which seem is a hedge have the evidence type 'inferred result', and 3 do not refer to any type of evidence at all, only epistemic assessment, making the total number of hedges with a component of epistemic assessment 46 %.
For appear, the total number of hedges are 28, and only 6 of these (21%) co-occur with the evidence type 'indirect inferred result' and only 4 (14 %) with the evidence type 'indirect inferred result', and none with no evidence, only belief and epistemic assessment as its source. This shows that
inferences with seem are more epistemic than inferences with appear.
Boosted modifiers
(100) and (101) are examples of boosted modifiers. In (100) the speaker's commitment to the truth value of the propositional content (that 'the foetus seemed to be trying to tear its way out of her stomach') is strengthened because seem in this case describes how something feels, i.e. sensory evidence. This particular example is also an example of how seem and appear can signal that what comes next is not an accurate comparison, but an exaggeration, (see below). Also, even though (100) is not a straightforward comparative construction, the function of seem in this case is to make a comparison between sensory evidence and the language expressing the experience. (101) is an example of appear functioning as a boosted modifier, in which the reference to evidence strengthens the reliability of the proposition. This is a typical hedge in academic writing. In my material it is – not unexpectedly – more frequent in the non-fictional texts.
(100) She went back to Dr. Brett, for she could not sleep or rest because of the energy of the foetus, which seemed to be trying to tear its way out of her stomach. (DL1) Hun gikk til doktor Brett igjen, for hun fikk hverken sove eller hvile på grunn av det energiske fosteret. Det var som om det prøvde å sprenge seg ut av maven hennes.
(DL1T)
(She went to Dr. Brett, for she could neither sleep nor rest because of the energetic foetus. It was as if it was trying to blow itself out of her stomach.)
69
(101) The marsupial mole, like the placental moles it so closely resembles, appears to feed on earthworms and insects. (ML1)
Pungmoldvarpen ligner mye på den placentale moldvarpen.
Den lever av meitemark og insekter. (ML1T)
(The marsupial mole is very similar to the placental mole. It feeds off earth worms and insects.)
The Norwegian correspondences in the translation pairs where seem functions as a boosted modifier are typically the third sense partition from Semantic Mirrors (group 3S): være som/om and kjennes, which are unique to seem. Note that the Norwegian correspondence of appear as a boosted modifier can be a zero correspondence, indicating that the evidence is so strong that it is redundant and the sentence can be straight forward proposition without a hedge. The function of seem as a boosted modifier thus emphasizes the epistemic quality of seem, whereas the function of appear as a boosted modifier is to strengthen the evidence.
Adjusters
There are examples of adjusters in the translation pairs. When seem and appear function as adjusters they signal that the information is sufficient, even if it is inaccurate. Prototypical examples are
approximators (2.4.2). Seem and appear as copular verbs in equative constructions that mark the relationship between the verb and the predicate as approximately equative (3.3.1.) are other examples of seem and appear as adjusters. Adjusters can also signal evidential meaning in the form of imprecision. Adjusters are rare in my material, but (102) might be an example of this type of hedge:
(102) Twice, he 'd been put on probation, but nothing seemed to have affected the nature of his behavior, which appeared nearly pathological in its thrust. (SG1)
To ganger var han blitt løslatt på prøve, men ingenting lot til å forandre atferdsmønsteret hans, som virket nærmest patologisk i sin hardnakkethet.
(Twice he had been put on probation, but nothing seemed to change his behaviour, which appeared almost pathological in its stubbornness.)
In (102) the scope of the hedge is that nothing has affected the nature of the behaviour. The fact that he is still on probation is not negotiable, and the observation that the behaviour shows signs of being pathological is not negotiable in this context (this is actually negotiated by appear). The information that his behaviour is unchanged, or that it has not changed enough to alter any of these facts, means that even though the information about the unchanged behaviour may not be totally accurate, it is sufficient.
Exaggerations and metaphors
There are several examples in my material where the pragmatic function of seem and appear is to signal that what comes next is not an accurate comparison, but an exaggeration or a metaphor (103), (104). This pragmatic function of seem and appear is exclusive to the fictional text samples.
(103) And this issue he had been hard put to it to find a couple of intelligent letters for the correspondence page; sometimes it seemed that every crackbrain in north-east Norfolk read the PANUP newsletter but that no one else did. (PDJ3)
70
Og til dette nummeret hadde han hatt store vanskeligheter med å få inn et par intelligente bidrag til brevspalten. Noen ganger virket det som om hver eneste skrulling nordøst i Norfolk leste PANUP-bladet, men ingen andre.
(PDJ3T)
(…sometimes it seemed that every madman in Norfolk read the PANUP Magazine, but no one else.)
(104) She appeared to be wearing parts of a dead goat on her feet (ST1) Hun så ut til å ha tullet føttene inn i deler av en død geit. (ST1T) (She looked as if she had wrapped her feet in parts of a dead goat.)
14 % of the hedges with appear fall into this subcategory of hedges, compared to about 10 % of the hedges with seem. The fact that appear is more frequently used to signal a metaphor or an
exaggeration may be because the exaggerations and metaphors are made by way of comparisons between what is attested and the lexical choices for what one is trying to express, which would be another manifestation of evidentiality.
5.5.2. Stance
In my analysis 'stance' is defined as a marker of commitment or detachment, i.e. as a marker of how seem and appear function as a way of distancing the speaker from the propositional content (105) or - the opposite - taking a stronger ownership to the propositional content on the speaker's behalf (106) or on a third party's behalf (107).
(105) Recently, the World Bank has come under fire from several quarters — academics, grassroots US environmental pressure groups and the US Congress — for funding projects which appear to be destroying both the local environment and local cultures. (LT1)
I det siste er Verdensbanken blitt kritisert fra flere kanter. Akademikere, amerikanske miljøvernforkjempere på grasrotplan og den amerikanske kongressen har kritisert banken for at den har finansiert prosjekter som ser ut til å ødelegge både det lokale miljøet og den lokale kulturen. (LT1T)
(…and the American Congress has Criticized the bank for having financed projects that appears to be [lit: looks to be] destroying both the local environment and the local culture.)
(106) If anything, Elizabeth was slightly superior in breeding to Yvette, whose touching childhood, the half-remembered episode of her mother urging her to eat in the train to Bordeaux — an episode which so moved him when he first heard it — seemed to clothe her in a vulnerability of which she remained unaccountably unaware. (AB1) Elizabeth hadde nok litt mer dannelse enn Yvette; hans kones rørende barndom, den halvglemte episoden med moren som inntrengende ber henne om å spise på toget til Bordeaux — en episode som gjorde ham svært beveget første gang han hørte den — alt syntes å gi henne en slags sårbarhet som hun på uforklarlig måte selv var uvitende om. (AB1T)
71
(…everything showed signs that gave her some kind of vulnerability, which she in an inexplicable way was unknowing of herself.)
(107) The smell was almost shut out, but to Alice it seemed that an invisible film of stench clung to everything, and she would feel it slippery on her fingers if she touched. (DL2) Stanken kjente de nesten ikke, men Alice syntes en usynlig hinne av vond lukt lå over alt, som om fingrene hennes ville bli klissete hvis hun rørte ved noe. (DL2T)
(They barely noticed the stench, but Alice thought [that] an invisible film of bad smell clung to everything…)
Stance as markers of detachment or commitment are more frequent with seem than appear. In a quarter of the sentences with seem (26 %), the main pragmatic function is to communicate how close – or distant – the speaker is to the propositional content. For appear, the number of sentences where this is the main pragmatic function is one in ten (9 %). In my material, stance is usually
connected to Indirect inferred evidence: three of four translation pairs in which appear functions as a marker of stance refer to inferred evidence, and in about half of the translation pairs in which seem is a stance marker (34 of 69), there is reference to inferred evidence.
In translation pairs in which seem and appear signal detachment, there is often an explicit third-party experiencer (107) and the Norwegian correspondence is typically a restructuring of the sentence so that the experiencer becomes the subject (5.3.2.). Furthermore, the source of evidence determines how invested the speaker is. If the evidence is experienced second hand or third hand, seem and appear signal distance (105).
Less distance to the propositional content – or stronger commitment – is the stance most frequently communicated when the speaker is the source of the evidence, by way of his if her perceptions (direct evidence) or his or her logical reasoning (indirect evidence). In (107) seem functions as a perception verb in a sentence with a great many other lexemes that have to do with sensory
evidence; smell, stench, and feel. The evidence is categorized as 'other sensory', and the stance is one of commitment. The commitment is somewhat weaker when the type of evidence is the speaker's interpretation of the facts (inferences made on the basis of some observed result). (107) is an example of how seem signals that the propositional content is the speaker's interpretation – he is the third person narrator in this text sample after all. In fictional texts, the voice of the narrator will matter: When it is a first-person narrator, seem frequently signals that the speaker takes ownership of the propositional content.
5.5.3. Politeness marker
In my material seem is the only expression with the pragmatic function of a politeness marker. Seem functions as a pragmatic marker in only four translation pairs (1 %), and the correspondence is usually a zero correspondence (108) or the pragmatic particle visst (109):
(108) Now, what seems to be the problem?" (FF1) Nå, hva er problemet (FF1T)
72 (109) "You do n't seem to understand. (ST1)
"Du Schinner visst ikke helt dette her. (ST1T)
The politeness in all the translation pairs in my data set is negative politeness. The function of seem in the translation pairs included in my study is soften a blunt and categorical statement, for example that there is a problem (108) or a strong opinion that would cause the hearer to lose face, for example that he does not understand (109). Seem functions as a politeness marker by toning down the impact of the statement to reduce the imposition on the hearer (3.1.3.).