Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T13:49:21.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2022

ERIC MÉLAC Open the ORCID record for ERIC MÉLAC [Opens in a new window]
ERIC MÉLAC*
Affiliation:
Département d'Études anglophones Université Paul Valéry – Montpellier 3 Route de Mende Montpellier 34090 France [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that the data on English evidential markers indicate that evidentiality is not a grammatical category which is only applicable to some languages, but can be considered a universal semantic function that tends to trigger the grammaticalization of lexical forms. This study investigates five criteria that can help us locate linguistic forms on the lexicon–grammar continuum: reduction, desemanticization, backgrounding, decategorialization and paradigmatization. Although it has not reached the full maturity of so-called ‘evidential languages’, English provides evidence of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Evidentiality is thus a relevant notion for English which substantially impacts the organization of the lexicon of the language, and the evolution of its grammar.

Keywords

evidentialitygrammaticalizationmodalsparentheticalsperception verbs
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 331 - 359
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I would like to thank Professor Laurel Brinton and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and detailed suggestions which allowed me to improve this article. I am also very grateful to my colleagues Debra Ziegeler, Anne Mathieu and Amanda Edmonds for their valuable feedback and kind support.

References

References

Aarts, Bas. 2011. Oxford modern English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas, Bowie, Jill & Popova, Gergana (eds.). 2020. The Oxford handbook of English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 16(1), 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexarndra Y. 2007. Information source and evidentiality: What can we conclude? Rivista di Linguistica 19(1), 209–27.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco & Cruz-García, Laura. 2011. The value of may as an evidential and epistemic marker in English medical abstracts. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 46(3), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Vincent, Nigel. 2011. Grammaticalization and directionality. In Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 162–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2010a. Evidence for what? Evidentiality and scope. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 63(4), 290–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2010b. Semantic maps and the identification of cross-linguistic generic categories: Evidentiality and its relation to epistemic modality. Linguistic Discovery 8(1), 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A cross-linguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16(1), 9–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2017. The evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The new psychology of language, 151–74. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.). 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Pagliuca, William. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical semantics, historical word formation, 59–83. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2000. What's wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23(2), 113–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, Wallace L. & Nichols, Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Advances in discourse processes, 261–72. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2007. The continuum between lexical and grammatical evidentiality: A functional analysis of Spanish parecer. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1), 109–28.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language 16(1), 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert, Marín Arrese, Juana Isabel & Wiemer, Björn. 2015. Evidentiality and the semantics-pragmatics interface. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2007. Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM- verbs. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1), 129–50.Google Scholar
Dendale, Patrick. 1993. Le conditionnel de l'information incertaine: Marqueur modal ou marqueur évidentiel? In Hitty, Gerold (ed.), Actes du 20e Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, vol. 1, 165–76. Halle: Francke.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1992. The information present: Present tense for communication in the past. In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 262–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Smirnova, Elena (eds.). 2010. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds.). 2004. Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fleck, David W. 2007. Evidentiality and double tense in Matses. Language 83, 589–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2001. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2), 167–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor. 2018. Where do evidentials come from? In Aikhenvald (ed.), 124–47.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas & Holmes, Jasper. 2007. A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language & Linguistics 11(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guentchéva, Zlatka (ed.). 2018. Epistemic modalities and evidentiality in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer et al. (eds.), 17–44.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2018. Turkic indirectivity. In Aikhenvald (ed.), 510–24.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975 [1965]. The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses linguistiques 2, 38–54.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha (eds.). 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Revision of Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch, 1. 1982. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts 49.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott & Heine (eds.), vol. 1, 37–80.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2014. From clause to pragmatic marker: A study of the development of like-parentheticals in American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1), 36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mélac, Eric. 2014. L'évidentialité en anglais: Approche contrastive à partir d'un corpus anglais-tibétain. PhD dissertation, Sorbonne nouvelle – Paris 3.Google Scholar
Mélac, Eric. 2018. Pour une taxonomie du changement linguistique: Comment redéfinir la grammaticalisation. In Hancil, Sylvie (ed.), Fonctionnements linguistiques et grammaticalisation, 29–57. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2000. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23(2), 187–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2001. The passive matrices of English infinitival complement clauses: Evidentials on the road to auxiliarihood? Studies in Language 25(2), 255–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2012. Lehmann's parameters revisited. In Cornillie, Bert & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 73–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens & Heltoft, Lars. 2015. Grammaticalisation as paradigmatisation. In Smith, Andrew D., Trousdale, Graeme & Waltereit, Richard (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, 261–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oisel, Guillaume. 2013. Morphosyntaxe et sémantique des auxiliaires et des connecteurs du tibétain littéraire: Etude diachronique et synchronique. PhD dissertation, Paris 3.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2014. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter & Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1989. From cases to adpositions. In Pantaleon, Nicola (ed.), Aspects of English Diachronic Linguistics (Proceedings of the Second National Conference of History of English), 19–61. Fasano: Schena Editore.Google Scholar
Precht, Kristen. 2003. Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. Text 23(2), 239–57.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(1), 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenner, Mathias. 2010. Embedded evidentials in German. In Diewald & Smirnova (eds.), 157–85.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1997. The origins of grammaticizable notions: Beyond the individual mind. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 5: Expanding the contexts, 265–324. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario. 2007. Investigating a grammatical category and its lexical correlates. Italian Journal of Linguistics 19(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Harvard, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott & Heine (eds.), vol. 1, 313–29.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1996. Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains: Tibétain central, ladakhi, dzongkha et amdo. In Guentchéva, Zlakta (ed.), L'énonciation médiatisée, 195–213. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2005. Typologie des aspects verbaux et intégration à une théorie du TAM. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 99(1), 7–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth 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, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline. 2004. Conditionals and subjectification: Implications for a theory of semantic change. In Fischer et al. (eds.), 169–92.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2009. Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs. Lingua 119(7), 1083–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2010. Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2011. (Inter)subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1), 347–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2015. On the grammaticalization of inferential evidential meaning: English ‘seem’ and German ‘scheinen’. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 20(2), 233–71.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Bisang, Walter. 2004. What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and its fringes. In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 3–20. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1), 51–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 1997. Retention in ontogenetic and diachronic grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 8(3), 207–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Resources and corpora

COCA: Davies, Mark. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 600 million words, 1990-present. Available online at www.english-corpora.org/coca/Google Scholar
COHA: Davies, Mark. 2010- The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available online at www.english-corpora.org/coha/Google Scholar
OED: The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edn.Google Scholar