Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-7l5rh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-28T23:42:14.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

From immediate to extended intersubjectification: a gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2015

VITTORIO TANTUCCI*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University

Abstract

This paper provides a theoretical and methodological contribution to the heated debate on intersubjectivity and intersubjectification (Nuyts, 2001, 2012; Traugott & Dasher, 2002; Traugott, 2003, 2010, 2012; Verhagen, 2005; Narrog, 2010, 2012; Dancygier & Sweetser, 2012). I will argue that intersubjectivity, intended as a subject’s awareness of the other persona(s)’ feelings, knowledge, and beliefs, can be construed alternatively on an ‘immediate’ and on an ‘extended’ level. Immediate intersubjectivity (I-I) corresponds to the mutual awareness of the speech participants during the ongoing speech event, whereas extended intersubjectivity (E-I) includes an assumed third party (specific or generic) who has an indirect social bearing on the utterance (cf. Tantucci 2013, 2014). Along a unidirectional cline of change, extended intersubjectification constitutes a further stage of semantic and/or grammatical reanalysis with respect to its immediate counterpart. In order to empirically justify the diachronic continuum between the two, I provide some corpus-illustrated (cf. Tummers et al., 2005, p. 235) examples from Mandarin and corpus-based evidence about the constructions [you don’t want X] and believe it or not in American English.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

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

Anderson, Lloyd (1986). Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 273312). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Claude J., & Ducrot, Oswald (1989). Argumentativity and informativity. In Meyer, M. (Ed.), From metaphysics to rhetoric (pp. 7187). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile (1971 [1958]). Subjectivity in language. In Problems in general linguistics (pp. 223230). Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J., & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage, vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2003) .Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, J. (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602623). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, & Pagliuca, William (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob, Cohen, Patricia, West, Stephen G., & Aiken, Leona S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert (2007). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-) auxiliaries: a cognitive-functional approach, vol. 5. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: on the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16(1), 4462.Google Scholar
Croft, William (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William, & Cruse, D. Alan (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, & Sweetser, Eve (2012). Viewpoint in language: a multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365392.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., & Kay, Paul (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 133.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: a contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. (2006). Simulating minds: the philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John (1994). Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, W. (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 328). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Tomasello, M. (Ed.), The new psychology of language, vol. 2 (pp. 211242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd (1992). Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language, 16(2), 335368.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth C. (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites, vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 538.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2006). Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In Canakis, C., Cornillie, B., & Athanasiadou, A. (Eds.), Subjectification: various paths to subjectivity (pp. 1740). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1991). The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B. (Eds.), English corpus linguistics (pp. 829). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., & Graham, Sage L. (2010). Interpersonal pragmatics, vol. 6. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Shu Xiang (1999). Xiandai hanyu babai ci [800 words from Modern Mandarin] . Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (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. 101124). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., & White, Peter R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2010). Modality and speech-act orientation. Paper presented at Grammaticalization and (Inter-)Subjectification, Brussels.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2012). Beyond intersubjectification: textual usages of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech orientation. English Text Construction, 5(1), 2952.Google Scholar
Newell, Allen (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383400.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2012). Notions of (inter) subjectivity. English Text Construction, 5(1), 5376.Google Scholar
Premack, David, & Woodruff, Guy (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515526.Google Scholar
Qiang, Xing Na (2007). Tawen yu ziwen – cong putonghua ‘ma’ he ‘ne’ shuoqi [Third-person and reflexive questions. A discussion on Mandarin ‘ma’ and ‘ne’]. Yuyan Kexue, 5.Google Scholar
Qiang, Xing Na (2008). Zhiqing zhuangtai yu zhichen yuqici ‘ma’ [Factual modality and the indicative mood particle ‘ma’]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue, 2.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul, & Garside, Roger (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul, Berridge, Damon, & Francis, Brian (2004). Extending the Cochran rule for the comparison of word frequencies between corpora. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Statistical Analysis of Textual Data (JADT 2004).Google Scholar
Schriffin, Deborah (1990). The principle of intersubjectivity in communication and conversation. Semiotica, 80, 121151.Google Scholar
Shen, Li (2003). Hanyu de zhichen yutai fanchou, jian zhongguo yuwen zazhi shebian ‘yufa yanjiu he tansuo’ (12) [The indicative mood of Mandarin: a look at the linguistic journal research and explorations in grammar (12)] . Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. (2003). Modes of discourse: the local structure of texts, vol. 103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tantucci, Vittorio (2013). Interpersonal evidentiality: the Mandarin V-过 guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the ‘source of information’. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 210230.Google Scholar
Tantucci, Vittorio (2014). Immediate and extended intersubjectivity: synchronic and diachronic interplay among evidentiality, factuality and other domains. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Tantucci, Vittorio (2015a). Epistemic inclination and factualization: a synchronic and diachronic study on the semantic gradience of factuality. Language and Cognition, 7(3), 371414.Google Scholar
Tantucci, Vittorio (2015b). Traversativity and grammaticalization: the aktionsart of 过 guo as a lexical source of evidentiality Chinese Language and Discourse, 6(1), 57100.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 3155.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1999). From subjectification to intersubjectification. Paper presented at Fourteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, R. (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2010). Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Davidse, K. & Vandelanotte, L. (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 2970). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2012). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction, 5(1), 728.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, & Dasher, Richard B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, & Trousdale, Graeme (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme (2012). Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L., & Mortelmans, T. (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change (pp. 167198). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tummers, José, Heylen, Kris, & Geeraerts, Dirk (2005). Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: a technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225261.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan, & Plungian, Vladimir A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2(1), 79124.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, Peter R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259284.Google Scholar