Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:40:47.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolution with an attitude: the grammaticalisation of epistemic/evidential verbs in Australian English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2013

CELESTE RODRÍGUEZ LOURO  and
THOMAS HARRIS
CELESTE RODRÍGUEZ LOURO
Affiliation:
35 Stirling Hwy, M257, Discipline of Linguistics, University of Western Australia, Crawley (6009), [email protected]
THOMAS HARRIS
Affiliation:
School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville (3010), [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Across Englishes, frequently used epistemic/evidential complement-taking predicates (e/e ctps) have undergone conventionalisation, whereby subject + e/e verb constructions are reanalysed as formulaic stance markers. However, the system of e/e ctps in Australian English (AusE) – and the degree to which they have grammaticalised – remains unexplored. In this article, we offer a quantitative analysis of the most frequent e/e ctps in the spoken portion of the International Corpus of English – Australia. Multivariate analysis shows that think and guess stand as canonical encoders of speaker attitude, and reckon is multifunctional, encoding epistemic modality and evidentiality. Assuming that (inter-)subjective meaning represents the last stage in semantic change, our results indicate that AusE reckon is less grammaticalised than think and guess.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 415 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

1

Thanks to Kate Burridge, Jean Mulder, Marie-Eve Ritz and Cara Penry-Williams for their helpful tips searching for a corpus of Australian English in early 2010. A version of this paper was presented at the 19th Conference of the International Pragmatics Association (Manchester) and as part of linguistics seminars offered at the University of Vienna (2011), Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universidad de Barcelona (2012). We would like to thank the audiences at these meetings for their helpful feedback. Special thanks are due to Laurel Brinton, Günther Kaltenböck and Montserrat González for their comments and suggestions. We are also indebted to two anonymous reviewers and the Editor for their helpful suggestions. All errors remain our own responsibility.

References

Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril & Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31 (3), 569–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 2002. Changes within Pennsylvania German grammar as enactments of Anabaptist world view. In Enfield, Nicholas (ed.), Ethnosyntax, 207–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. & Landa, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–23. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82 (4), 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23, 377–88.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: The grammaticalization of tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cappelli, Gloria. 2007. ‘I reckon I know how Leonardo da Vinci must have felt. . .’: Epistemicity, evidentiality and English verbs of cognitive attitude. Pari, Italy: Pari Publishing.Google Scholar
Dannenberg, Clare J., Locklear, Hayes Allan, Schilling-Estes, Natalie & Wolfram, Walt. 1996. A dialect dictionary of Lumbee English. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/5760.Google Scholar
Delbridge, Arthur, Bernard, John, Blair, David, Butler, Susan, Peters, Pam & Yallop, Collin (eds.) 1997. The Macquarie dictionary. Sydney: The Macquarie Library.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Tomasello, Michael. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2), 97–141.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward & Biber, Douglas. 1995. That and zero complementizers in Late Modern English: Exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. In Aarts, Bas & Meyer, Charles (eds.), The verb in contemporary English, 241–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory. 1988. Advanced varbrul analysis. In Ferrara, Kathleen, Brown, Becky, Walters, Keith & Baugh, John (eds.), Linguistic change and contact, 124–36. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter. 1991. The emergence of perfective aspect in Indo-Aryan. In Traugott, Elizabeth & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 59–89. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Animacy in early New Zealand English. English World-Wide 33 (3), 241–63.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 2004. The pragmatics of polarity. In Horn, Lawrence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 701–23. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. Development of comment clauses. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey & Wallis, Sean (eds.), The English verb phrase: Investigating recent language change with corpora, 286–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of interactional functions, with a focus on ‘think’. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2010. Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud & Schneider, Stefan (eds.), New approaches to hedging, 207–41. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2007. Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer. English Language and Linguistics 11 (3), 475–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1994. A communicative grammar of English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frank. 1991. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott, Elizabeth & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 37–80. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Malcolm, Ian. 2007. Aboriginal English genres in Perth. Mount Lawley: Centre for Applied Language and Literacy Research and Institute for Service Professions Edith Cowan University.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Alexander George. 2003. The story of Australian English: Users and environment. A public lecture delivered at Macquarie University on 12 October 1993. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 111–128.Google Scholar
Mullan, Kerry. 2010. Expressing opinions in French and Australian English discourse. A semantic and interactional analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Palander-Collins, Mina. 1999. Male and female styles in 17th century correspondence: I THINK. Language Variation and Change 11: 123–41.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 1989. There's no tense like the present: Verbal -s inflection in early Black English. Language Variation and Change 1 (1), 47–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2001. African American English in the diaspora. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Precht, Kristen. 2008. Sex simmilarities and differences in stance in informal American conversation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (1), 89–111.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, Celeste. 2013. Quotatives Down Under: Be like in cross-generational Australian English speech. English World-Wide 34 (1), 48–76.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, Celeste & Ritz, Marie-Eve. 2012. Stories Down Under: Tense variation at the heart of Australian English narratives. Paper presented at the 2012 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Perth, WA.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Eric. 2005. Goldvarb X: A multivariate analysis application for Macintosh and Windows. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htmGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002. Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter & Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Jennifer. 2005. No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9, 289–309.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1986. Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 311–32. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26 (1), 125–64.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra & Mulac, Anthony. 1991a. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15 (3), 237–61.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra & Mulac, Anthony. 1991b. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, Elizabeth & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. II: Focus on types of grammatical markers, 313–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas. Linguistics 47, 1–47.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Deiter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Urmson, James. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61, 480–96.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2006. I guess, I suppose and I believe as pragmatic markers: Grammaticalization and functions. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures 4, 129–49.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2010. A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics 14 (3), 399–427.Google Scholar
Van Herk, Gerard. 2012. What is sociolinguistics? Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9, 145–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar