Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:30:29.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic inclination and factualization: a synchronic and diachronic study on the semantic gradience of factuality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2014

VITTORIO TANTUCCI
VITTORIO TANTUCCI*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes a gradient redefinition of the notion of factuality, here intended as a dynamic continuum unfolding through several epistemic levels. In this respect, the speaker/writer’s increasing certainty upon the realization of an event or situation is here as factualization. Factualization is a conceptual phenomenon determined by an embodied mechanism (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Lakoff, 1987, 2003; Grush, 2004; Gallese & Lakoff, 2005) of cyclic acquisition and control with respect to a new proposition P. Being a form of subjectification (Traugott, 1989, 1995, 2003, 2010, 2012; Traugott & Dasher, 2002), factualization occurs as the semasiological reanalysis of an epistemic construction. Drawing on Langacker’s (1991, 2008, 2009) notion of the ‘epistemic control cycle’ (see also Kan, Teubner-Rhodes, Drummey, Nutile, Krupa, & Novick, 2013, on cognitive control), I claim and demonstrate that epistemic predicates originally conveying weak certainty towards a proposition P diachronically develop an increasingly factual meaning conveying more and more frequently a subjected form of certainty. This phenomenon is first shown through a qualitative and quantitative corpus analysis from the BNC,1 which provides a measurable account of the various degrees of polysemy of the three epistemic predicates I think, I believe, and I reckon. In addition, I discuss the results of a diachronic corpus survey from the diaCoris on the factualization process of (Io) penso ‘I think’ in Modern Italian during the last 150 years, showing how the contemporary usage of (Io) penso is notably more oriented towards absolute factuality than it was 150 years earlier.

Keywords

factualityepistemic control cycleepistemic inclinationsubjectificationfactualization
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 371 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Aijmer, K. (1997). I think: An English modal particle. In Swan, T. & Westvik, O. J. (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1–47). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baker, P., Hardie, A., & McEnery, T. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A.-a.-R., & Mengal, A. K. (1969). A course in Baluchi (Vol. 1). Montreal: Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University.Google Scholar
Bascelli, E., & Barbieri, M. S. (2002). Italian children’s understanding of the epistemic and deontic modal verbs dovere (must) and potere (may). Journal of Child Language, 29(1), 87–107.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., & Bybee, J. (2009). A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. In Ellis, N. C. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (Eds.), Language as a complex adaptive system (Vol. 3) (pp. 27–46). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1971 [1958]). Subjectivity in language (Meek, M. E., trans.). In Problems in general linguistics (pp. 223–230). Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 642–652.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, J. (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007). Diachronic linguistics. In Cuyckens, D. G. a. H. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 945–987). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S., & Timberlake, A. (1985). Tense, aspect and mood. In Timothy, S. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol. 3) (pp. 202–258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2010). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dehé, N., & Wichmann, A. (2010). Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language, 34(1), 36–74.Google Scholar
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193–222.Google Scholar
Dietrich, R. (1992). Modalität im Deutschen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind: an essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gallese, V. & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 455–479.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grush, R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 377–442.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C., van Reenen, Pieter, & Schøsler, Pieter (Eds.) (2000). Textual parameters in older languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D., & Berglund-Prytz, Y. (2008). Corpus linguistics with BNCweb: a practical guide (Vol. 6). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345–365.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men, and politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kan, I. P., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Drummey, A. B., Nutile, L., Krupa, L., & Novick, J. M. (2013). To adapt or not to adapt: the question of domain-general cognitive control. Cognition, 129(3), 637–651.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F. (1987). On defining modality. Folia Linguistica, 21(1), 67–94.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1971). Fact. In Bierwisch, M. & Heidolph, K. (Eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 143–173). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kurzban, R. (2012). Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite: evolution and the modular mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2003). The embodied mind, and how to live with one. In Sanford, A. J. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (Eds.), The nature and limits of human understanding (pp. 47–74). New York & London: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Haiman, J. (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990a). Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990b). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: descriptive application (Vol. II). Standford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2006). Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In Athanasiadou, A.Canakis, C., & Cornillie, B. (Eds.), Subjectification: various paths to subjectivity (pp. 17–40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar (Vol. 42). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loughin, T. M. (2004). A systematic comparison of methods for combining p-values from independent tests. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 47(3), 467–485.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–124). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (2000). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ming, X. (2013). Qingtai dongci ‘gai’ yu ‘yinggai’ tongyi qianxi [A detailed study of the similarities and differences between the modal verbs ‘gai’ and ‘yinggai’]. Yuyan Yanjiu [Studies in Language and Linguistics], 169–172.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (1999). The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. (2002). Polysemy and indeterminacy in modal markers–the case of Japanese beshi. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 11(2), 123–167.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. (2005a). Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: a new perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 677–731.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. (2005b). On defining modality again. Language Sciences, 27(2), 165–192.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese: the layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories (Vol. 109). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norman, D., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to Action. In Davidson, R. J.Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (pp. 1–18). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: a cognitive–pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Onelli, C., Proietti, D., Seidenari, C., & Tamburini, F. (2006). The DiaCORIS project: a diachronic corpus of written Italian. Paper presented at the LREC-2006, the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: issues in the semantics–pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Pedersen, T. (1996). Fishing for exactness. Paper presented at the SCSUG 96, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Peng, L. Z., & Liu, Y. B. (2007). Lun ‘iinggai’ de liang zhong qingtai yu ti de tongxian xianzhi [A discussion about two types of aspectual and modal limitations in co-occurrence with yinggai]. Yuyan Jaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies], 6, 30–37.Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, P. (2005). Epistemic modality: functional properties and the Italian system (Vol. 74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reichle, V. (1981). Bawm language and lore. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1986). Variation and the study of English historical syntax. In Sankoff, D. (Ed.), Diversity and diachrony (pp. 97–109). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic change: a Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlaghecken, F., & Martini, P. (2012). Context, not conflict, drives cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 705–731.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 531–577.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (1996). Image-building through modality: the case of political interviews. Discourse & Society, 7(3), 389–415.Google Scholar
Squartini, M. (2009). Evidentiality, epistemicity, and their diachronic connections to non-factuality. In Hansen, M.-B. M. & Visconti, J. (Eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics (pp. 211–277). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.Google Scholar
Sumnicht, A. (2001). A cognitive approach to negative raising. Paper presented at the Seventh International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (2012). Introduction: viewpoint and perspective in language and gesture, from the Ground down. In Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: a multimodal perspective (pp. 1–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tantucci, V. (2013). Interpersonal evidentiality: the Mandarin V-过 guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the ‘source of information’. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 210–230.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, D. & Wright, S. (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, R. (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2010). Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Davidse, K. & Vandelanotte, L. (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–70). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction, 5(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: a technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963–73). An historical syntax of the English language (Vol. 3). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Weeber, M., Baayen, R. H., & Vos, R. (2000). Extracting the lowest-frequency words: pitfalls and possibilities. Computational Linguistics, 26(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitley, E., & Ball, J. (2002). Statistics review 3: hypothesis testing and P values. Critical Care, 6(3), 222–225.Google Scholar