Effective vs. Epistemic Stance

7/24/2019 Effective vs. Epistemic Stance

1/32

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity

in political discourse

Legitimising strategies and mystification oresponsibility

Juana I. Marn ArreseUniversidad Complutense de Madrid

. Introduction

Tis chapter presents a model or the characterization o the speaker/writersexpression o stance and subjectivity in discourse, which might reveal and accountor similarities and differences in interpersonal styles, as well as across genres andlanguages. In characterising the domain o stance, I draw on Langackers (2009: 291)

distinction between the effective and the epistemic level: Epistemic relations arethose which hold at the level o knowledge, and thus involve conceptions o reality. Bycontrast, effective relations hold at the level o reality itsel. Te ramework proposedin this chapter distinguishes two categories o stance: effective, which pertains to theways in which the speaker/writer, through stancetaking acts, tries to exert controlor influence on the course o reality itsel, and epistemic, whichpertains to speaker/writers stancetaking acts concerning knowledge about the events designated.

Meanings expressed by linguistic resources o stance typically include bothcontentul and procedural aspects (Blakemore 1987; raugott & Dasher 2002).

Amongst other resources o epistemic stance, evidential expressions pertain tothe sources o knowledge whereby the speaker validates the inormation in thecommunicated proposition, and epistemic modal expressions concern the speak-ers estimation o the veracity o an event and the likelihood o its realization(Sanders & Spooren 1996; Mushin 2001; Plungian 2001; Aikhenvald 2004; MarnArrese 2004, inter alia). Effective stance resources involve expressions o deonticity,assessments and attitudinals. All these stance resources are indexical o the speaker/writers subjective and intersubjective positioning with respect to the communi-

cated proposition (Langacker 1991, 2000; Marn Arrese 2007, 2009), including thedegree to which they assume personal responsibility or the evaluation o the inor-mation or whether the assessment is potentially shared by others (Nuyts 2001).

Political language use is a orm o communication which is particularly sensitiveto distortion subject to the interests and power relations o participants; as such, it is

In: Christopher Hart (ed. 2011) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins. 193-223.


2/32

Juana I. Marn Arrese

a preerred locus or the strategic use o language, in the Habermasian sense. It willbe argued that the use o stance resources involves strategies used by speakers/writersto manage their interests and thus serves the strategic unctions o legitimisation andcoercion (Chilton & Schffner 1997; Chilton 2004). As Chilton (2004: 117) observes,one basic type o legitimising strategy is essentially epistemic in that it has to do withthe speakers claim to have better knowledge, recognition o the real acts. A sec-ond type o legitimisation strategy is deontic, where the speaker claims, explicitly orimplicitly, to be not only right in a cognitive sense, but right in a moral sense. Tecombined use o the two types o legitimisation strategies can be judged coercive inthat their main rhetorical goal is to persuade (see also Hart & Luke 2007).

Mystification o responsibility or the realization o events involves dimensions

o deocusing o agency, realized by means o expressions in the middle-spontaneous-passive systems (Kemmer 1993; Marn Arrese 2002, 2003; Langacker 2006, interalia). However, the evocation o responsibility or the communicated propositioncrucially involves the domain o subjectivity/intersubjectivity, that is, the degreeto which the speaker as conceptualizer is explicit and salient in the discourse or isimplicitly evoked, and the degree to which the expressions index the speaker or anincompletely defined collectivity, or some implicit conceptualizer which may beconstrued as virtual or generalized. By means o stance resources, speakers/writers

not only manage their interests with respect to their goal o persuasion, but alsomanage their responsibility or the use o these legitimising strategies, through strat-egies o mystification such as implicitness and the appeal to shared responsibility.

In this chapter I present results o a case study on the use o these linguisticresources in political discourse in English and Spanish. Te texts analyzed includetwo genres o argumentative discourse: political speech and parliamentary state-ment. Trough this comparative study, my aim is to reveal the characterizinginterpersonal eatures o the speakers in relation to the domains o stance andsubjectivity/intersubjectivity as well as possible intercultural differences in politi-cal discourse practices.

Tis chapter is organized as ollows. Section 2 includes some observationson the notions o stance, subjectivity and political discourse. Te corpus study isdescribed in Section 3. Te categories o stance, and the results o the corpus study,are presented in Section 4. Te results or subjectivity and intersubjectivity arediscussed in Section 5. Te final section is devoted to the conclusions.

. Stance, subjectivity and political discourse

. Effective vs. epistemic stance

Te multiaceted nature o stance has been associated with phenomena suchas evaluation, subjectivity, and positioning in discourse. Stance reers to the


3/32

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

particular viewpoint or enunciational position o the speaker/writer or o someother subject o conception, which reflects their attitudes, assessments and knowl-edge concerning the designated event and/or the communicated proposition.According to Biber et al. (1999), stance involves three major domains: epistemicstance, attitudinal stance, and style. Our concern here is with those stance devicesor indices which overtly express an evaluative rame or some other proposition,which Biber et al. (1999: 967) term grammatical stance devices. Tese linguisticresources or the expression o speaker/writer stance include modal and eviden-tial expressions, assessments and attitudinal expressions, as well as some orms otense-aspect-mood systems.

Stance involves a subjective component o attitude and evaluation, and a dia-

logic construction o enunciational position which is intersubjective in nature.From a dialogistic perspective, Martin and White (2005: 92) note that there is a tra-dition in discourse studies in which all utterances are seen as in some way stancedor attitudinal. Tese linguistics resources provide the means or the authorial

voice to position itsel with respect to, and hence to engage with, the other voicesand alternative positions construed as being in play in the current communicativecontext (Martin & White 2005: 94). Tese orms o dialogistic positioning reflecta speaker/writers interpersonal style and in addition produce specific rhetorical

effects which speakers/writers may bring to bear on the overall unction o dis-course as social practice.Following Englebretson (2007), stance may be defined as a dialogically con-

structed orm o social action, which is public and interpretable, and consequen-tial in that it involves responsibility and consequences or the stancetaker in socialterms. Te stancetaking act is described by DuBois (2007: 163) in the ollowingterms: Stance is a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overtcommunicative means, o simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects(sel and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salientdimension o the sociocultural field.

Te ramework presented in this chapter posits two macro-categories ostance: effective and epsitemic stance. Te category o effective stance pertainsto the positioning o the speaker/writer with respect to the realization o events,to the ways in which the speaker/writer carries out a stance act aimed at deter-mining or influencing the course o reality itsel. Epistemic stance reers to thepositioning o the speaker/writer with respect to knowledge concerning the rea-lization o the event, to the ways in which the speaker/writer carries out a stance

act aimed at estimating the likelihood o an event and/or judging the validity o aproposition designating the event. Tis ramework allows or finer-grained dis-tinctions within each category, and systematically relates speaker/writers stancechoices with differing degrees o subjectivity/intersubjectivity (Marn Arrese2007, 2009).


4/32


. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity

Te ormulation o subjectivity as the capacity o the speaking sel to view him/

hersel as subject o enunciation (sujet dnonciation) is ound in the seminal workby Benveniste (1966[1958]). He drew attention to the act that the relationship ointersubjectivity between the speaker/writer and addressee/reader is a basic con-dition or linguistic communication. AsFinegan (1995: 12) defines the notion,subjectivity concerns expression o sel and the representation o a speakers (or,more generally, a locutionary agents) perspective or point o view in discourse(a speakers imprint). Te subjectivity o discourse is a crucial actor or acet olanguage, since it concerns language as an expression an incarnation, even

o perceiving, eeling, speaking subjects. Similarly,Lyons (1977,1995) andrau-gott (1995) are concerned with the expression o sel, with how the semantics oan expression relates to the speaker (subjectivity) or whether it is non-speaker-related (objectivity). An objective use o language has been typically associatedwith linguistic expressions where the speaker/writers viewpoint is not explicitlycoded (i.e. nominalization, passive, etc.). Te use o more subjective language isassociated with various ways in which the speaker/writer is present, either throughreerence to the source o their inormation (i.e. evidentiality), to their epistemo-logical stance (i.e. epistemic modals), or through their evaluations (i.e. attitudinal

expressions) regarding the realization o events.Langackers (1991)notion o subjectivity is explained drawing on percep-

tual notions. In a situation o optimal viewing arrangement there is maximalasymmetry between the viewer or subject o perception and the scene viewedor object o perception. Te viewer (subject o conception) remains offstage,thus being implicit and construed with maximal subjectivity, whereas the entitywhich is the ocus o attention (the object o conception) is onstage, and issalient and objectively construed. In contrast, in a situation o egocentric view-

ing arrangement, the viewer goes onstage, thus becoming more salient andobjectified.

In terms o the conceptual analogue o these perceptual notions, the speakeris by deault the subject o conception, and the object o conception is the entitywhich is put onstage and profiled by an expression. In the deault situation,the speaker/writer as conceptualizer is offstage, a ground element, implicitlyevoked, and hence construed subjectively. In contrast, when the speaker/writer,or some other acet o the ground, is placed onstage, made explicit and salientas part o the object o conception, they are objectively construed. According toLangacker (2002: 17),

An entity is construed objectively to the extent that it is distinct rom theconceptualizer and is put onstage as a salient object o conception. Being the


5/32


ocal point within the onstage region, an expressions profile has a high degreeo objectivity. An entity receives a subjective construal to the extent that itunctions as the subject o conception but not as the object. Te highest degree o

subjectivity thus attaches to the speaker and hearer, specifically in regard to thoseexpressions that do not in any way include them within their scope.

As de Smet and Verstraete (2006: 369) point out, both Langackers subjective andobjective are speaker-related, and thereore subjective (in raugotts terms).

An additional acet o subjectivity pertains to the notion o speaker/writercommitment and/or responsibility or the communicated proposition. Nuyts(2001) conceives the dimension o subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity as the degreeto which the speaker assumes personal responsibility or the evaluation o the evi-

dence (subjectivity) or whether the assessment is potentially shared by others(intersubjectivity).

On the basis o these notions, my own proposal considers the interaction otwo parameters o subjectivity/intersubjectivity: degree o salience and explicit-ness o the role o the conceptualizer, and personal vs. shared responsibility.

. exts, genres and discourses

exts are situated in social events, and are shaped by social structures and socialpractices, as well as by the social agents involved in the events. As Fairclough(2003: 22) argues, social agents texture texts, they create meanings as an effect othe relations that they set up between elements o texts. In the process o meaning-creation, there is a representation component o meaning, an action component,and an identification component, the latter pertaining to the relations with one-sel, and thus to subjectivity. As Fairclough (2003: 27) notes:

texts simultaneously represent aspects o the world (the physical world, the

social world, the mental world); enact social relations between participants insocial events and the attitudes, desires and values o participants; and coherentlyand cohesively connect parts o texts together, and connect texts with theirsituational contexts.

Social structures are abstract entities whose relationship to events is mediated byintermediate organizational entities or social practices. In terms o language andcommunication, these correspond to what Fairclough (1992)terms orders o dis-course. As Fairclough (2003: 2425) defines them,

orders o discourse are the social organization and control o linguisticvariation, and their elements (discourses, genres, styles) are correspondingly notpurely linguistic categories but categories which cut across the division betweenlanguage and non-language, the discoursal and the non-discoursal.


6/32


Discourse is present in social practice in the orm o genres, that is, as differentways o interacting discoursally (i.e. a political speech), in the orm o discourses,in the sense o representations o social practices (i.e. the political discourse o NewLabour), or as styles, that is, as constituting particular ways o being, particularsocial or personal identities (Fairclough 2003: 26).

Te notion o genre as a discoursal activity crucially involves the purposes othe activity. In discussing purposes,Habermas (1984)distinction between commu-nicative and strategic action is particularly relevant, that is, interaction orientedto arriving at understanding, as opposed to interaction oriented to getting results(Fairclough 2003: 71). Fairclough (2000) argues that certain genres are instrumen-tal in sustaining the institutional structure o contemporary society, these are the

genres o governance. Tey are purpose-driven genres in which interaction is pre-dominantly strategic (i.e. political speeches, parliamentary statements).

Genres contribute to create relations between different types o social agents,organizations, groups, or individuals. Tese relations vary in dimensions such aspower, or social hierarchy, and solidarity, or social distance (Brown & Gilman1960). Political discourse, in the orm o political speeches, parliamentary state-ments, etc., is one such instance o communication between organizations (govern-ment, political parties) and individuals, in which interaction is basically strategic.

Since texts and interactions are open to creativity, we may find cases where textsblend or hybridize genres, as in the widespread use o conversational eatures indifferent genres such as news broadcasts and other orms o public discourse (con-

versationalization o public discourse, Fairclough 1992). As Fairclough (2003: 76)notes, genres o governance are pervasively characterized by simulated social rela-tions which [] tend to mystiy social hierarchy and social distance. A maniesta-tion o this phenomenon is the case o political leaders such as ony Blair, whoappear to be speaking or themselves as individuals rather than in their politicalrole (i.e. as Prime Minister). Te strategic use o personal reerence (I believe),the use o inclusive we, all contribute to evoke the type o interaction ound inequal encounters, characterized by minimum social hierarchy and social distance.Tough the analysis o the ideological implications o the use o these resources isbeyond the scope o the present research chapter, we will bear them in mind in thediscussion o the rhetorical strategies o the speakers.

. Te corpus study

Discursive and textual articulation in the different discourse domains, under-stood as different contexts o communication between speaker/writer and hearer/reader, is, I believe, a product o the interaction between conceptualization,


7/32


communicative intentions and psycho-social and cultural norms and values. Testudy o the maniestation o these actors in language will thus contribute tounderstand how texts and discourses are shaped, and the way different speakers/writers engage in communication mediated by their roles, their personal or politi-cal goals, and the various cultural discourse practices.

On the micro-level o identity, the use o stance resources contributes toindex ideological positioning and political identity, which is reflected in thesepoliticians stancetaking acts and their expression o inter/subjectivity, and inthe similarities and/or differences in their interpersonal styles and their strategicuse o language.

It is hypothesized that variation in the use o stance resources, and in the

expression o inter/subjectivity, by speakers/writers engaging in a particularsocial role (President, Prime Minister, President o Government), and their cor-responding personal and political goals, in the various discourse domains (politi-cal discourse) and genres (political speech, parliamentary statement), will revealcharacteristic differences between the speakers interpersonal styles. Variation willalso reveal characteristic differences o discourse practices across languages andcultures. Tough no claims can be made regarding intercultural differences on thebasis o the corpus used in this case study, it is relevant to note that certain eatures

which exhibit significant differences in these samples o political discourse havealso been ound in previous studies o journalistic discourse (Marn Arrese 2004,2006; Marn Arrese et al. 2004), and political discourse (Marn Arrese 2007).

. Te texts

Tis chapter aims to characterize the interpersonal style1o three politicians George Bush, ormer President o the USA, Anthony Blair, ormer British PrimeMinister, and Jos Mara Aznar Lpez, ormer President o Government o Spain

in terms o their expression o stance and subjectivity in parliamentary state-ments and political speeches. In this case study I have worked with the transcriptso the ollowing three texts:2

. It must be borne in mind that the parliamentary statements and political speeches ana-

lyzed are not simply the result of a single conceptualizing mind, but the collegiate effort of the

assessors or speech writers of the P, PM or PG.

. Te labels used for the texts are the following:

B-SP: Bush, Political speech

BL-PS: Blair, Parliamentary statement

A-PS: Aznar, Parliamentary statement


8/32


a. (B-SP): George Bush, President Bush Outlines Iraqi Treat, Speech at CincinnatiMuseum Center Cincinnati Union erminal, Cincinnati, Ohio, 7 October2002 (3,374 words)

b. (BL-PS): Anthony Blair, Prime Ministers statement opening Iraq debate inParliament, 18 March 2003 (4,874 words)

c. (A-PS): Jos M Aznar Lpez, Comparecencia del Presidente de Gobiernoante el Pleno de la Cmara, para inormar sobre la situacin internacionalen relacin con Irak y la posicin del Gobierno de la nacin, 18 March 2003(3,811 words) (President o Governments statement in Parliamentary plenarysession to inorm about the international situation in relation to Iraq and theposition o the Government).

Te Parliamentary statements by Blair and Aznar, arguing in avour o militaryaction against Iraq, take place only two days afer the statement issued by USPresident George W. Bush, UK Prime Minister ony Blair and Spanish Presidento Government Jose Maria Aznar at their summit meeting in the Azores, on 16March 2003. Both statements are very similar in content and proposals to thespeech by President George Bush at Cincinnati Museum Center.

. Research objectives and procedure

In order to test the hypotheses, the ollowing research objectives are defined. Teaim is to:

i. Characterize the presence and patterning o the expression o effective andepistemic stance in the discourse o the three politicians, by identiying, clas-siying and quantiying the various linguistic resources used;

ii. Reveal the role o these linguistic resources as indices o differing degrees osubjectivity and intersubjectivity;

iii. Establish comparisons o the similarities or differences in the use o theseresources by the three speakers, in order to reveal the rhetorical potential othese resources, and the exploitation o their persuasive effects by the speakers.

Te texts were examined and tagged manually in the first instance to identiythe tokens o effective and epistemic markers present. An electronic search usingMonoconc was carried out to ensure that all the instances present in the texts hadbeen identified. Te examples ound were then analysed and tagged according tothe parameters and dimensions urther specified in Sections 3 and 4. Te catego-

ries identified and the tags used are the ollowing:

i. Stance: EF-Effective stance, EP-Epistemic stance; andii. Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity: SE-Subjective Explicit, IE-Intersubjective

Explicit, SI-Subjective Implicit, IO-Intersubjective Opaque.


9/32


Te data were submitted to urther analysis or the quantitative results. Te chi-square test was run to establish the cases where differences between requencieswere significant. Te value o significance was established at p


10/32


able 1. Effective stance markers

Effective stance (EF)

Deonticity: Deontic modals and modalso possibility and necessity, and adverbs,predicative adjs. and nominals.

must, should .can, could, cannot .have to, need to .It is necessary to, It is impossible to

Assessments: Personal and impersonalpredicates expressing desirability, requirementor normativity

Tat requires ; We are required to;.It is essential to.It is right to ; It is time to; It is air to

Attitudinals: Modals o volition and personalpredicates expressing inclination, intention, orcommitment.

I will/wont, I would not .I wanted/intended to , I hoped .I am/was determined to

Directives: Personal predicates ocommunication used with a directiveillocutionary orce. Imperatives and hortatives.

We urging.Let me make it clear.Let us recall

Deonticity:Deontic modality reers to the enabling or compelling circum-stances external to the participant as some person(s), ofen the speaker, and/or assome social or ethical norm(s) permitting or obliging the participant to engage inthe state o affairs (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998: 81).

(1) Knowing these realities, America must[[EF]], SI

not ignore the threatgathering against us. (B-SP:97)

(2) , to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enorcementmechanisms will have to[[EF]], SIbe very different. (B-SP:101)

Within the domain o possibility and necessity, we also find expressions whichidentiy either the participants ability or capacity, or their need to carry out theevent designated. Alternatively, they may reer to the circumstances external to theparticipant which make the event possible or necessary.

(3) Facing clear evidence o peril, we cannot[[EF]], SIwait or the finalproo the smoking gun that could come in the orm o a mushroomcloud (B-SP:98)

Assessments:Tis category includes matrix predicates which designate the speak-ers expression o judgements o desirability, necessity or possibility o the occur-rence o a particular situation (Tat requires,), and other non-verbal expressions(duty, ), as or example.

(4) law regimes building weapons o mass destruction are different aces othe same evil. Our security requires[[EF]], IOthat we conront both.(B-SP:92)


11/32


(5) , we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty[[EF]], IEto prevent the worst rom occurring. (B-SP:99)

Te category also includes miscellaneous expressions involving impersonal con-structions which indicate generalized inclination or advisability o the events real-ization, or which describe the emotive reaction o the speaker with respect to theoccurrence o the event (It is crucial, It is urgent, It is right, It is time to,) (c. Bhatt2006: covert orms o modality).

(6) o the contrary; conronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial[[EF]], IOto winning the war on terror. (B-SP:90)

In Spanish, verbal periphrastic expressions o deonticity include modal verbsdeber (must/should), poder (can) + infinitive, or the verbs haber/tener (have)+ subordinator que (that) + infinitive, as well as modal periphrasis, haber de(have o) + infinitive. Non-verbal markers include predicative adjectives andnominals ollowed either by an infinitive, es necesario (it is necessary to ),or by a finite clause in the subjunctive, es necesario que(it is necessary to ),and nominal periphrasis, el deber de (the duty o/to) (Gmez orrego 1999;Ridruejo 1999).

(7) Lamentablemente, hemos de constatar que Sadam Husein ha despreciadosu ltima oportunidad y debe[[EF]], SI, por tanto, hacer rente a lasconsecuencias de su decisin de violar flagrantemente las normas de (A-PS:53) (Regrettably, we have to confirm that Sadam Husein hasdisregarded his last chance and must [[EF]], SI, thereore, ace theconsequences o his decision to flagrantly violate the norms o )

(8) Por eso Espaa no puede[[EF]], SImirar hacia otro lado en una crisiscomo sta. (A-PS:71) (Tat is why Spain cannot [[EF]], SIlook the other

way in a crisis like this.) (9) Si queremos un mundo en paz y seguro, en el cual las democracias no se

vean amenazadas ni chantajeadas, tenemos que[[EF]], SIreafirmar lasolidaridad del vnculo entre Europa y Norteamrica y (A-PS:87) (I wewant a world in peace and secure, in which democracies are not threatenedor blackmailed, we have to [[EF]], SIreaffirm the solidarity o the linkbetween Europe and North America and )

Expressions o assessment reerring to desirability, requirement or normativ-

ity ound in the Spanish corpus include: requiere (requires), corresponde hacer(should be done), es esencial (it is essential), es urgente(it is urgent), le conviene(it is convenient or), as can be seen in the ollowing examples.


12/32


(10) Una paz segura y estable requiere[[EF]], SIsin duda de gobiernos quesepan tomar decisiones y (A-PS:111) (A secure and stable peace requires[[EF]], SIno doubt governments which are capable o taking decisions

and )

(11) Creo, sin duda, que es lo que corresponde hacer[[EF]], IOen unrgimen de democracia representativa como el nuestro. (A-PS:47)(I believe, no doubt, that this is what ought to be done [[EF]], IOin aregime o representative democracy such as ours.)

(12) El desarme del rgimen de Sadam Husein es esencial[[EF]], IOparaque el mundo viva con menos amenazas, (A-PS:66) (Disarming theregime o Sadam Husein is essential [[EF]], IOso that the world may live

with ewer threats, )

(13) Realmente, en este caso es urgente[[EF]], IOadvertir que se va aplicar yala legalidad internacional. (A-PS:51) (Really, in this case it is urgent [[EF]],IOto warn that international law will be aplied.)

Attitudinals: Tis category comprises the use o matrix predicates designat-ing speakers inclination and volition (I hope, We want, Im not willing,),or intention (We resolved, I plan, ) regarding the realization o the event(c. effective matrix predicates, Langacker 2007), as well as predicative adjectives(We are resolved to,), relational constructions involving nominals and sen-tence adverbs.

(14) I hope[[EF]], SEthis will not require military action, but it may.(B-SP:115)

(15) We resolvedEF, IEthen, and we are resolved [[EF]], IEtoday, toconront every threat, rom any source, that could bring sudden terror andsuffering (B-SP:78)

(16) Im not willing[[EF]], SEto stake one American lie on trusting SaddamHussein. (B-SP:128)

Expressions o volitive modality (modals will, wont), also included in this cat-egory, are concerned with the expression o volition or intention o the speakerand/or participant engaged in the event. Tese expressions ofen bear a commis-sive orce when they involve speaker cum participant combinations.

(17) Saddam Hussein must disarm himsel or, or the sake o peace, we will[[EF]], IElead a coalition to disarm him. (B-SP:109)

Intentions in Spanish are typically designated by the uture tense or by verbalperiphrasis ir a(going to) + infinitive: seguiremos(we will go on). Other attitudi-nal expressions ound in the Spanish corpus include: deseamos(we wish), quiero(I want), es mi intencin(it is my intention to), etc.


13/32


(18) Necesitamos, pues, a nuestros amigos y a nuestros aliados y, enconsecuencia, seguiremos[[EF]], IEtrabajando para reorzar la amistady la solidaridad entre Europa y los Estados Unidos, (A-PS:89) (We thus

need our riends and our allies and, thereore, we will go on [[EF]], IEworking to reinorce riendship and solidarity between Europe and theUnited States, )

(19) Deseamos[[EF]], IEla coexistencia en paz, seguridad y libertad de dosEstados: Israel y una Palestina independiente y democrtica. (A-PS:63) (Wewish or [[EF]], IEpeaceul coexistence, security and reedom in the twostates: Israel and an independent and democratic Palestine.)

(20) Es mi intencin[[EF]], SEinvitar al nuevo primer ministro palestino,

Abu Mazen, a visitar Espaa tan pronto como sea confirmado en susunciones. (A-PS:64) (It is my intention [[EF]], SEto invite the newPalestinian Prime Minister, Abu Mazen, to visit Spain as soon as he isconfirmed in office.)

Directives:Te use o expressions in the Imperative mood with a conventionaldirective orce, or with a hortative value, are also ound.

(21) Let me[[EF]], SIexplain the nature o this threat as I see it. (BL-PS:132)

(22) And let usEF, SIrecall: what was shocking about 11 September was notjust the slaughter o the innocent;(BL-PS:134)

Tis category also includes examples o perormative uses o verbs o communica-tion with a directive illocutionary orce (We are urging,), or other expressions(We agree that, ) which also denote the effective stance o the speaker cum par-ticipant with regard to the realization o the event. Similarly in Spanish we findexpressions, such as solicito (I am asking), with a directive orce.

(23) And that is why we are urging[[EF]], IEthe Security Council to adopt a

new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. (B-SP:102)

(24) Esta es la cuarta ocasin en que solicito[[EF]], SEdebatir con los grupospolticos sobre el desarrollo de esta crisis en un perodo de un mes y medio.(A-PS:46) (Tis is the ourth time in which I ask [[EF]], SEto debate withthe political groups about the development o this crisis in a period o amonth and a hal.)

. Epistemic stance

Expressions o epistemic stance include a variety o expressions which designatesituations in which the speaker as conceptualizer expresses knowledge about theevent or some orm o estimation regarding its potential realization, as shown inable 2.


14/32


able 2. Epistemic stance markers

Epistemic stance (EP)

Epistemic modality: Epistemic modals;Adverbs, predicative adjs. and nominals

must, will, would, mayI was certain, It was likelyCertainly, Perhaps, Indeed

ruth-Factual validity: Personal andImpersonal predicates expressingactive or affective meanings; Adverbs,predicative adjs. and nominals

I am confident that Te truth is.., Te act isIn my judgementFrankly

Experiential evidentiality: Personalpredicates o perceptual or mentalobservation; Adverbs, predicative adjs.and nominals

We have seen, We have experiencedWhat is perectly clearIt is evident, It was obviousObviously, Clearly, Palpably

Cognitive evidentiality: Personalpredicates o mental state; Adverbs,predicative adjs. and nominals

I think, I have come to the conclusionWe all know, We have learnedTat means.., Presumably

Comunicative evidentiality: Personalpredicates o communication and verbalinteraction

I say to you , I saidTat suggests, Tat implies

Epistemic Modality: Expressions o epistemic modality concern speakersestimations o the prospects or realization o the event designated. Tey encode

different degrees o certainty regarding the likelihood o its realization. Degrees ospeaker certainty are typically characterized as: high certainty or necessity (must,cannot, certainly, ), medium certainty or probability (will, would, should, proba-bly, ), and low certainty or possibility (may, could, perhaps, ) (van der Auwera &Plungian 1998; Palmer 2001, inter alia).

(25) talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim itmust[[EP]], SIbe under the lash o Saddam. (BL-PS:80)

(26) And Saddam Husseinwould

[[EP]], SI

be in a position to pass nucleartechnology to terrorists. (B-SP:29)

(27) An Iraqi regime aced with its own demise may[[EP]], SIattempt crueland desperate measures. (B-SP:48)

Also included in this category are predicative adjectives in expressions whicheither explicitly or implicitly invoke the subject o conceptualization, and sentenceadverbs (I was certain, It was likely, certainly, perhaps,).

(28) And there is perhaps[[EP]], SIa lack o ull understanding o USpreoccupations afer 11th September. (BL-PS:67)

Verbal markers o epistemic modality in Spanish take the orm o modal verbdeber (must/should) or poder (may/might)+ infinitive: debe ser (it must be),


15/32


puede ser (it may be),pudiera ser (it might be); tener que(have to) + infini-tive: tiene que ser (it must be); or modal + complement clause in the subjunc-tive mood: puede que sea(it may be). Tey also comprise modal periphrasis:haber de(have o), deber de(must o) + infinitive: ha de ser(it must be), debede ser (it must/should be). Bybee et al. (1994) have pointed out that epistemicnecessity may derive rom a uture marker. In Spanish epistemic meaning maybe expressed by verbal inflection in the uture tense (*r/rn) or by the condi-tional (*ra/ran); epistemic qualifications are also associated with the uture per-ect marker (habr/n+PP). Non-verbal markers include adverbs and adverbialexpressions: sin duda (no doubt), ciertamente(certainly/truly), desde luego (ocourse),probablemente(probably), quiz/quizs(perhaps), seguramente(surely),

tal vez(maybe); adjectives:posible (possible),probable(probable), seguro(sure);and nominals: la certeza (the certainty), la seguridad (the security) (Gmezorrego 1999; Ridruejo 1999). Examples ound in the Spanish corpus include thesubjunctive orm o the modal verb,puedan (might), various verbs in the utureand uture perect, harn(will do), se producirn(will take place), and non-verbalmarkers, sin duda(no doubt),tal vez (maybe),quiz(perhaps).

(29) donde la comunidad internacional trabaje por la seguridad mundial,arontando y resolviendo esta crisis y las que en el uturo se puedan[[EP]],

SIpresentar. (A-PS:38)(where the international community work orworld security, acing and solving this crisis and those which might [[EP]],SItake place in the uture.)

(30) ambin en los das venideros se producirn[[EP]], SInuevasdeclaraciones. (A-PS:27) (In the ollowing days there will [[EP]], SIalsobe new declarations.)

(31) El Consejo de Seguridad, seoras, no ha racasado, tal vez[[EP]], SIloque haya racasado haya sido una poltica de contencin seguida durante

doce aos que ha permitido (A-PS:25) (Te Security Council, RightHonourable members, has not ailed, perhaps [[EP]], SIwhat has ailedmay have been a policy o contention ollowed or twelve years which hasallowed )

ruth-Factual Validity: Personal and impersonal constructions designatingjudgements about truth or likelihood are also ound (Te truth is, in my judge-ment), as in the ollowing example.

(32) Te truth is[[EP]], SIour patience should have been exhausted weeks andmonths and years ago. (BL-PS:24)

Experiential evidentials:Tis category includes evidential markers that empha-size the perceptual aspect o the acquisition o the inormation (c. Fitneva 2001),


16/32


indicating that the speaker has direct personal sensory access to the evidence, orthat the evidence is perceptually available to her/himsel and others, including theaddressee/reader (We have seen, We have witnessed, We have experienced,).

(33) We have seen[[EP]], IEthat those who hate America are willing to crashairplanes into buildings ull o innocent people. (B-SP:31)

(34) Weve experienced[[EP]], IEthe horror o September the 11th. (B-SP:30)

Indirect perceptual markers may also emphasize the inerential process in theacquisition o inormation on the basis o observable results; that is, the evi-dence is presented as a sign, or a direct proo, or the claim (Sanders 1999: 478).

Such expressions include: lexical verbs (It appears, Tat shows, Tat reveals,),predicative adjectives (It became clear, It is obvious,), and sentence adverbs andadverbials (clearly, palpably,).

(35) And surveillance photos reveal[[EP]], IOthat the regime is rebuildingacilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.(B-SP:4)

(36) Clearly[[EP]], IO, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions orenorcement mechanisms will have to be very different. (B-SP:40)

Expressions in Spanish similarly include verbal and non-verbal markers o directand indirect access to the evidence. Verbal markers o experiential stance include:encontrar (find), mostrar(show), parecer(seem), indicar (indicate), quedar pat-ente(be patent),quedar claro(be clear). Common non-verbal markers in Spanishinclude: al parecer(seemingly), aparentemente (apparently), obviamente (obvi-ously), claramente (clearly), evidentemente (evidently), though none was oundin our text.

(37) , anticos que saben como dividirnos para que parezca[[EP]], IOadems que somos los dems los que ponemos en peligro la convivencia.(A-PS:20) (, anatics who know how to divide us so that it would seem[[EP]], IOmoreover that it is the rest o us who are endangeringcoexistence.)

(38) Ha quedado patente[[EP]], IOla negativa de Sadam Husein a eectuarel desarme al que est obligado, (A-PS:10) (Sadam Huseins reusalto carry out the disarmament to which he is obliged has become patent[[EP]], IO, )

Cognitive evidentials:Tis category pertains to the mental world o the speaker.It involves the use o mental state predicates (I believe, I think, We know, I amconvinced,), non-verbal markers (doubtless,without doubt), and relational and


17/32


existential constructions involving nominals (My guess was, Tere was no doubt inmy mind, My belie,).

(39) I believe[[EP]], SEwe must hold firm. (BL-PS:3)

Indirect cognitive markers describe access to the inormation as a result o mentalprocesses (I have come to the conclusion, I gather,). I have also included somepredicates which reer to inerential processes involving knowledge interpretation(Tat means,).

(40) I have come to the conclusion[[EP]], SEafer much reluctance that thegreater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass (BL-PS:58)

(41) Approving this resolution does not mean[[EP]], IOthat military action isimminent or unavoidable. (B-SP:64)

Cognitive evidentials in Spanish also include direct markers: Creer(believe/think),conocer(know), entender(understand), and indirect markers: significar(mean).Other examples ound in the text include impersonal constructions, es conocida(it is known).

(42) Adems creemos[[EP]], IEfirmemente que Irak no debe volver aconvertirse en reugio para ningn tipo de terroristas. (A-PS:13)(In addition, we firmly believe [[EP]], IEthat Irak should neveragain become a reuge or any type o terrorists.)

(43) Conocemos[[EP]], IEla magnitud del dao que los terroristas ya hancausado, conocemos la capacidad devastadora que alcanzaran con armasde destruccin masiva. (A-PS:34) (We know [[EP]], IEthe magnitude othe harm the terrorists have already caused, we know the devastatingcapacity that they would attain with weapons o mass destruction.)

Communicative evidentials: Tis category includes examples o sel-reerenceto current or previous acts o communication or sel-attribution (I say to you,

I said), whereby the speakers not only communicate their knowledge o theevent but also validate the proposition by appealing to their authority as publicpersonae.

(44) When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said[[EP]], SEthatthose who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.(B-SP:15).

Also ound are examples o reerence to verbal agreement (We agree that ), andindirect evidential involving meaning-shifs rom the domain o verbal commu-nication to the domains o knowledge and belie, including cognitive conclusionalprocesses (i.e. ) (Tat suggests, Tat implies, ).


18/32


(45) , in a sense, any air observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breachand that 1441 implies[[EP]], IOaction in such circumstances.(BL-PS:32).

In Spanish we find similar verbal expressions, afirmar (state), reiterar (repeat),estar de acuerdo (agree), implicar (imply). Examples o sel-attribution are alsoound in Spanish: inormar(inorm).

(46) Seora presidenta, creo no exagerar si afirmo[[EP]], SEque laque estamos viviendo en estas semanas es la crisis internacional msdeterminante desde (A-PS:19) (Madam President, I do not think Iexaggerate i I state [[EP]], SEthat what are going through these pastweeks is the greatest international crisis since )

. Effective vs. epistemic stance: Results and discussion

Te use o expressions o effective stance evokes a orm o potency or orce which isinherent in the social interaction between speaker and hearer.3Tis orce is meantto be effective: it is aimed at actually bringing about the occurrence o the onstageprocess designated by the grounded verb (Langacker 2007: 14). Te use o effectivestance markers signal the speakers position with regard to the necessity or desir-

ability o the realization o events, and are intended to have an effective persua-sive effect. By contrast, the use o epistemic stance markers, whose orce is merely

predictivewith respect to the profiled process (Langacker 2007: 14), concerns theknowledge o events and the validity status o the inormation. In rhetorical terms,these stance markers reflect the speakers concern with the acceptance o the inor-mation as valid on the part o the hearer, and are an indication o the way in whichthey use legitimisation strategies in order to manage their interests.

able 3 shows the global results or effective (EF) and epistemic (EP) stance

or the three politicians. Te results are given in raw numbers, and requencyper thousand words. Te distribution or effective and epistemic stance in thediscourse o the three politicians is significant;4 there is association betweenpolitician and choice o stance mode.

. Langacker (2003: 14) notes that if the speaker or hearer are not themselves the source and

target of the social force, but merely convey it, they may nonetheless experience it vicariously

through empathy.

. Te Chi Square test using raw numbers gives the following results: Chi-square = 12.5,

df: 2, p 0.002. Te test was also calculated on the basis of results of the ratios per 10,000

words, since the number of words of the texts differed considerably: Chi-square = 30.3083,


19/32


able 3. Effective and epistemic stance markers

Stance Bush Blair Aznar

3,374 words 4,874 words 3,811 words

N R N R

Effective (EF) 63 18.67 70 14.36 72 18.89Epistemic (EP) 74 21.93 102 20.92 45 11.80OAL 137 40.60 172 35.28 117 30.70

In general terms, we find a cline in the ratio o use o stance markers, withBush at the higher end. It has been observed that total commitment to truth iszero-marked in most languages, reflecting the workings o our cultural modelsregarding knowledge, whereby inormation is assumed to be true unless otherwiseindicated (Matlock 1989; Bybee et al. 1994). In this case, both Bush and Blair usethe highest ratio o epistemic stance markers (R = 21.93 and R = 20.92), whichwould reflect a lesser degree o commitment to truth. In contrast, Aznar appearsto be the most committed speaker. Tese observed differences might be due tointercultural differences. In the context o intercultural pragmatics, it has been

suggested that there are sociopragmatic differences in the way different culturesdeal with the resolution o the conflict between politeness and sincerity (Tomas1983; Wierzbicka 1991). In this respect, there is a tendency in Spanish to upholdtruthulness over politeness, which might have a reflection in the lower use o epis-temic stance markers in discourse. In a study on the use o modality and evidenti-ality in newspaper discourse (editorials and news reports) in English and Spanish(Marn Arrese 2006), it was ound that the ratio (per thousand words) o use oepistemic modal qualifications in English was 3.19, in contrast with Spanish, 1.59;

and as regards evidential qualifications, the figures were 3.10 or English, and 1.88or Spanish. However, urther research is necessary in this respect.

Figure 1 illustrates the overall results or effective and epistemic stance in thediscourse o Bush, Blair and Aznar (ratio per thousand words).

Df: 2, p 0.000. Tere is very strong evidence in both cases against the null hypothesis, since

the observed values are not due to random variation.


20/32


21/32


. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in discourses

. Salience o conceptualizer role

Subjectivity has been characterized by Langacker (1991, 2000, 2002) in termso the roles o the conceptualizer and the conceptualization s/he entertains.Te speaker, as ground element, serves the role o subject o conception andsource o the predication, but may also become an object o conception as aparticipant within the predication. When explicitly mentioned, in expressionswith personal predicates (I have to say, I saw, I believe,), the speaker is objec-tified since in addition to the role o conceptualizer, s/he is also part o the

conceptualization.In the case o modals, the conceptualizer is implicit, so that his/her role is lessprominent and more subjectified. Nonetheless, as Sanders (1999: 473) notes, tothe extent that the conceptualizer unctions as an implicit point o reerence, thespeakers active consciousness is also evoked. One o the grammatical proper-ties o grounding elements such as modals is that an utterance with a modal doesnot readily accept an expansion to include the explicit mention o the speakeror hearer (*For me, there could have been). As Langacker (2002: 13) notes, agrounding element does not specifically mention the ground, despite evoking it

as a reerence point. Impersonal modal predicates (it is possible, ) are not con-sidered grounding elements as such, though they do invoke a conceptualizer,the actor whose conception o reality is at stake. In the case o impersonal modaladverbs, the conceptualizer evoked by the adverb is typically identified by deaultwith the actual speaker (Langacker 2004).

With impersonal perceptual and cognitive evidentials (it seems, that means),where the presence o the speaking subject is opaque; there is only covert reerenceto the ground, so that the role o the conceptualizer is almost maximally subjec-

tive. Langacker (2000: 350) notes that with an expression such as it seems, the con-ceptualizer may be only potential or is construed generically or in a generalizedashion. In contrast with modals, impersonal evidential expressions accept expan-sions which include the explicit mention o the speaker/writer (It seems to me, Itsounds to me like , For me, that means that , It is clear to me that ).I wouldargue that in this case the speaker/writer is presenting the complement propositionas part o the epistemic dominion o a virtual conceptualizer (Langacker 2004), butone which is intersubjectively available. Te speaker/writer, by identiying with thisintersubjective virtual conceptualizer, narrows down the mental activity to him/hersel.

Drawing on these notions, a continuum may be identified in the dimensiono subjectivity in terms o the parameter degree o salience or overtness o therole o the conceptualizer, and degree to which there is oregrounding o the


22/32


speakers consciosness. Te continuum ranges rom cases where the conceptual-izer is onstage as part o the conceptualization and is thus encoded as the explicitsource o the evaluation, to those where the conceptualizer is implicit and non-salient, and finally to those where the role o the current speaker as source o theevaluation is opaque since the expression evokes a virtual or generalized concep-tualizer (Marn Arrese 2007).

Explicit Implicit Opaque

I think... at may... It seems...

Figure 2. Salience o the role o conceptualizer

. Subjective and intersubjective evidentiality

An additional dimension o subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity concerns the degreeto which the speaker assumes personal responsibility or the communicated prop-osition (subjective) or presents the inormation as shared or potentially sharedby others (intersubjective) (Nuyts 2001), as indicated in Figure 3 (Marn Arrese2007).

Personal Opaque Shared

I think... It seems...at may ...

We know

Figure 3. Personal vs. shared responsibility

Expressions designating the speaker explicitly (I think, I am sure, ) indi-cate that the speaker/writer personally subscribes to the assessment. Epistemic

modals, which implicitly invoke the subject o conception, would also indicatespeakers personal responsibility. At the other end o the continuum, those expres-sions that reer to a collectivity (We all know, We saw, ) explicitly index sharedresponsibility.

Te middle ground is that o evidential expressions not designating thespeaker explicitly, which may be interpreted as invoking shared responsibility.As Sanders and Spooren (1996: 246) note, in the case o perceptual evidentials(it seems), the commitment to the validity o the inormation is shared or atleast potentially shared by the speaker/listener and other participants (non-subjective or intersubjective responsibility). Cognitive and communicative evi-dential expressions (Tat means, that suggests, ), are similarly opaque in thatthey also leave open the possibility o potentially sharing the evaluation withother participants.


23/32


. Subjectivity/intersubjectivity

My proposal or the analysis o subjectivity/intersubjectivity considers the

interaction o the parameters salience or overtness o the role o the concep-tualizer, which reers to the degree o explicitness, implicitness or opaquenesso the presence o the conceptualizer and personal vs. shared responsibilityor the communicated inormation. A our-old distinction is thus proposed(Marn Arrese 2007, 2009):

Subjective, Explicit (SE):Te speaker is the explicit point o reerence, thesole subject o the epistemic judgement or effective attitude. We find examplesin the modal and evidential domains o predicates with personal subjects which

designate the speaker as subject o conception (I saw, I think, I am convinced, Iam aware,), and also other expressions which include explicit mention o thespeaker (For me, my judgement, ).

(47) But Im convincedEP, [[SE]]that is a hope against all evidence. AsAmericans, we want peace (B-SP:184)

(48) We must ace the consequences o the actions we advocate. For meEP, [[SE]], that means all the dangers o war. (BL-PS:201)

(49) No se vive de palabras sino de realidades y creemos y creoEP, [[SE]]queslo arontando con responsabilidad nuestras convicciones nos hacemosciertamente dignos de ellas. (A-PS:162) (One does not live on words buton reality, and we believe and I believe EP, [[SE]]that only by acing ourconvictions with responsibility can we be really worthy o them.)

Intersubjective, Explicit (IE):Te speaker overtly presents the experience or eval-uation as intersubjectively shared with the audience or with other specific subjects(We have experienced,), or as universally shared (We all know,). Tis includes

the use o inclusive we in reerence to an incompletely defined collectivity thatincludes the speaker and one or more others, without speciying who they are(Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 745), as in the ollowing examples.

(50) We knowEP, [[IE]]that the regime has produced thousands o tons ochemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, (B-SP:144)

(51) ConstatamosEP, [[IE]]que no se ha alcanzado un consenso en el Consejode Seguridad sobre una nueva resolucin. (A-PS: 118) (We have verifiedthat EP, [[IE]]a consensus has not been reached in the Security Council

about a new resolution.)

I have also included cases involving impersonal or vague uses o pronouns(Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990), where the speakers voice and speakers responsibility isdiffuse (You would think,).


24/32


(52) - but written in late 1938 afer Munich when by now,you would havethoughtEP, [[IE]]the world was tumultuous in its desire to act.(BL-PS:221)

Subjective, Implicit (SI):Te speaker is the sole conceptualizer, the implicit sub-ject o the epistemic judgement or effective attitude. In this category, we includeexpressions which invoke the speaker/conceptualizer as the implicit point o re-erence. We find modal auxiliaries (may, will, must, could, should,) and modaladverbs (certainly, perhaps,), as the ollowing examples show.

(53) Te resolution willEP, [[SI]]tell the United Nations, and all nations, thatAmerica speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands othe civilized world mean something. (B-SP:255)

(54) And there is perhapsEP, [[SI]]a lack o ull understanding o USpreoccupations afer 11th September. (BL-PS:283)

(55) ambin puedeEP, [[SI]]haber otras situaciones de grave amenaza parala paz y seguridad internacionales que exigen una respuesta,(A-PS: 164)(Tere may EP, [[SI]]also be other situations o dire threat to internationalpeace and security which call or a response, )

(56) No hacerlo implicara dejarla para ms tarde, quizEP, [[SI]]para

demasiado tarde, y aumentar, por lo tanto, los riesgos para la seguridadinternacional. (A-PS: 166) (Not doing so would imply leaving it or later,perhaps EP, [[SI]]until too late, and thereore increase the risks orinternational security.)

Intersubjective, Opaque (IO):Te role o the speaking subject is opaque; theexpressions invoke an implicit conceptualizer, which may be construed as vir-tual or generalized. Te speaker presents the inormation as potentially sharedwith the addressee and/or others, since the qualification is based on evidence

which is tacitly shared or potentially accessible to the interlocutor or audi-ence. A variety o linguistic resources are ound in this category: impersonalmodal predicates (It is possible, It is likely,), impersonal evidential predicates(It seems, It is clear,), predicates with discourse deictic that as subject (Tatshows, Tat means, Tat implies,), agentless passives (It was judged,), andevidential adverbs (Obviously, Palpably,).

(57) Te attacks o September the 11th showedEP, [[IO]]our country that vastoceans no longer protect us rom danger. (B-SP:274)

(58) What is perectly clearEP, [[IO]]is that Saddam is playing the same oldgames in the same old way. (BL-PS:327)

(59) , resulta esencialEF, [[IO]]reafirmar nuestro compromiso con elvnculo atlntico porque as protegemos nuestra seguridad. (A-PS:232)


25/32


(It is essential EF, [[IO]]to reaffirm our compromise with the Atlanticlink because that way we protect our security.)

. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity: Results and discussion

Te global results or subjectivity/intersubjectivity or the three politicians areshown in able 4, in raw numbers and ratio per thousand words. Te distribu-tion or the expression o subjectivity/intersubjectivity in the three politicians issignificant5.

Te figures or subjective, explicit markers (SE) are the lowest in the case oBush and Aznar. Blair has distinctively higher requencies in this category, themajority o which are accounted or by markers o epistemic stance which indexexplicit subjectivity (SE-EP) (I know, I think, I believe, ).

able 4. Subjectivity/intersubjectivity: Bush, Blair and Aznar

Subjectivity Bush Blair Aznar

3,374 words 4,874 words 3,811 words

N R N R

S Explicit 9 2.67 32 6.56 12 3.14SE-EF 5 1.48 8 1.64 4 1.04

SE-EP 4 1.18 24 4.92 8 2.10

I Explicit 41 12.15 26 5.33 33 8.65

IE-EF 23 6.82 11 2.26 15 3.93

IF-EP 18 5.33 15 3.08 18 4.72

S Implicit 74 21.93 92 18.87 49 12.85

SI-EF 31 9.19 45 9.23 40 10.49

SI-EP 43 12.74 47 9.64 9 2.36

I Opaque 13 3.85 22 4.51 23 6.03IO-EF 4 1.18 6 1.23 13 3.41

IO-EP 9 2.67 16 3.28 10 2.62

OAL 137 40.60 172 35.28 117 30.70

. Tere is strong evidence against the null hypothesis in both cases, on the basis of the cal-

culation with raw numbers (Chi-square = 25.5, df:6, p 0.000), and with normalized ratio fre-

quencies (Chi-square = 63.1021, Df: 6, p 0.000). Te frequencies of markers falling into the

four outcome categories (SE, IE, SI, IO) differed significantly from the expected frequencies,

so we may safely assume that there is association between politician and choice of dimensions

of subjectivity/intersubjectivity.


26/32


Te three speakers make most requent use o expressions o subjectivitywhich invoke the speaker/conceptualizer implicitly (SI), and which contribute todiffuse their personal responsibility or the communicated propositions. Tere is,however, a cline in the use o expressions o implicit subjectivity, with Bush at thehigher end and Aznar at the lower end. Tere is also a difference regarding thecorrelation between implicit subjectivity and type o stance marker: in the case oAznar, there is a distinctive preerence or implicitness in the expression o effec-tive stance (SI-EF) (i.e. must, have to, cannot,).

As regards intersubjectivity, both Bush and Aznar exhibit a high requency oexpressions o explicit intersubjectivity (IE), especially through the use o mark-ers o collective responsibility (we know, we are urging,). Tis seems to involve a

strategy aiming to present the decision as shared by the American audience or byother members o the Spanish Parliament.

With respect to intersubjective opaque (IO) markers, both Aznar, and to alesser extent Blair, show considerable ratios or this category. Aznar avours thecorrelation between opaque markers and effective stance (EF-IO) (i.e. it is essen-tial, it is urgent, it is impossible,), whereas Blair preers opaque epistemic stancemarkers (Tat means, Tat shows, It is clear,). Te use o markers o opaqueintersubjectivity also contributes to present the inormation as implicitly shared

or potentially shared with the audience.Figure 4 illustrates the differences in the discourse o the three politicians(ratio per thousand words).

0

5

10

1520

25

30

35

40

45

Bush Blair Aznar

S-ExplicitI-Explicit

S-Implicit

I-OpaqueTotal

Figure 4. Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity: Bush, Blair and Aznar

Tese results reveal subtle variations in the use o strategies o mystification,

implicitness and the appeal to shared responsibility. Implicitness can be measuredin terms o the cumulative effect o the use o subjective implicit (SI) markersand intersubjective opaque (IO) markers. Te percentages o the use o markers


27/32


where the conceptualizer is implicit or where only a virtual conceptualizer isevoked (Bush = 63%, Blair = 66.3%, Aznar = 61.5%) reveal that this is the strategyavoured by the three politicians.

Appeal to shared responsibility can be measured by considering not onlyexplicit intersubjective markers (IE), but also intersubjective opaque (IO) mark-ers. Te percentages or this strategy (Bush = 39.4%, Blair = 27.9, Aznar = 47.8%)differ, Aznar being the politician who makes greater recourse to shared respon-sibility. Te discourse o ony Blair is quite distinctive in this respect, his use ointersubjective markers is relatively low. In terms o the comparison betweensubjective and intersubjective markers, Blair is the speaker who is more sub-

jectively present in his discourse i we take into account the percentage o

explicit (SE) and implicit (SI) subjective markers (Bush = 60.6%, Blair = 72.1%,Aznar = 52.1%).

Te cumulative effect o the two strategies, implicitness and appeal to sharedresponsibility clearly contributes to mystiy the personal responsibility o Bush inhis message to the American people, and that o Blair and Aznar in the process odecision-taking both in the English and Spanish Parliaments.

. Conclusion

Tis chapter presents a model or the characterization o the speaker/writersexpression o stance and subjectivity in discourse, which reveals and accounts orsimilarities and differences in interpersonal styles, as well as across the variousgenres and discourses. Te analysis o speaker/writers stance draws on Langackers(2007, 2009) distinction between the effective and the epistemic level in language.Epistemic stance pertains to the knowledge o the speaker/writer regarding therealization o the event and/or to their estimations o the validity o the propositiondesignating the event. Effective stance relates to the ways in which the speaker/writer aims to exert control on the realization o the event, by expressing the neces-sity o the event occurring, or their attitudes and assessments with regard to theevent. Subjectivity has been discussed in terms o the degree o salience attached tothe role o conceptualizer or the degree to which the conceptualizer is evoked butremains implicit (Langacker 1991, 2000, 2002). Te dimension o intersubjectivityis closely linked to the notions o personal vs. shared responsibility or the inorma-tion (Nuyts 2001). In this chapter I have argued that both conceptions o subjectiv-

ity are complementary and that in order to adequately characterize the notion oresponsibility one needs to bear in mind the degree o salience or overtness o therole o the conceptualizer.


28/32


Te chapter has presented a corpus study on the use o linguistic resourcesor the expression o effective and epistemic stance in political discourse. Politicaldiscourse in English appears to be characterized by the extensive use o markerso epistemic stance (We all know, We have experienced), whereas Spanish tendsto avour the use o effective stance markers (i.e. must, cannot, It is essential).Tere are, however, significant differences in the interpersonal styles o GeorgeBush and Anthony Blair. Whereas in the discourse o Bush there is a greater bal-ance between both stance domains, the discourse o Blair shows a clear preerenceor epistemic stance. It has been argued that by the use o these stance resourcesspeakers manage their rhetorical goals o persuasion through the strategic unc-tions o legitimisation and coercion (Chilton & Schaffner 1997), that is, claiming

true knowledge o the events and claiming to be morally right in the proposedrealization o events.

Stance resources are indices o speakers expression o subjectivity/inter-subjectivity in discourse. Te use o expressions which are indexical o thespeakers implicit subjectivity, which invoke an implicit conceptualizer, are pre-dominant in the discourse o the three politicians. Te main difference lies inthe tendency or Aznar, and to a lesser extent Bush, to invoke intersubjectivelyshared assessments. In this way, the speakers manage their responsibility or

their estimations regarding knowledge o events and or their proposed realiza-tion o events, through strategies o mystification such as implicitness and theappeal to shared responsibility.

Further research is necessary with respect to other dimensions o stance(degree o speaker/writer commitment) in order to complete the characterizationo these discourses. Tere is also a need to expand the corpus, exploring other dis-course domains (scientific discourse, ), genres (news reports, ), and discoursemodes (narrative discourse, ) in order to validate the model presented here.Finally, the contrastive perspective needs to be pursued more extensively in orderto explore the possible cultural variations in the different discourse domains andgenres (Marn Arrese 2007).

References

Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxord: Oxord University Press.Benveniste, .(1966 [1958]) De la subjectivit dans le langage. Problems de Linguistique Gnrale.

Paris: Gallimard. 258266. (Orig. publ. inJournal de psychologie 55: 267. 1958).Bhatt, R. (2006). Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & E. Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar o Spo-

ken and Written English. London: Longman.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110197341http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110197341http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110197341http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110197341http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110197341http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110197341


29/32


Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxord: Blackwell.Brandt, P.A. (2004). Evidentiality and enunciation: A cognitive and semiotic approach. In

J.I. Marn Arrese (ed.) Perspectives on Evidentiality and Modality. Madrid: Editorial

Complutense. pp. 310.Brown, R. & A. Gilman (1960). Te pronouns o power and solidarity. In . Sebeok (ed.), Style

in Language. Cambridge, MA: MI Press. pp. 253276.Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & W. Pagliuca (1994). Te Evolution o Grammar: ense, Aspect, and Modal-

ity in the Languages o the World. Chicago: University o Chicago Press.Chilton, P. (2004).Analysing Political Discourse: Teory and Practice. London: Routledge.Chilton, P. & C. Schffner (1997). Discourse and politics. In .A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as

Social Interaction. London: Sage. pp. 206230.DuBois, J.W. (2007). Te stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 139182.

Englebretson, R. (2007). Introduction. In R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 126.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language?London: Routledge.Fairclough, N. (2003).Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.Finegan, E. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In D. Stein & S. Wright

(eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. pp. 115.

Fitneva, S. (2001). Epistemic marking and reliability judgements: Evidence rom Bulgarian.Journal o Pragmatics 33: 401420.

Gmez orrego, L. (1999). Los verbos auxiliares: Las perrasis verbales de Infinitivo. InI. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola. Madrid:Espasa Calpe. pp. 33233390.

Habermas, J. (1984). Teory o Communicative Action. London: Heinemann.Hart, C. & D. Luke (eds.) (2007). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application

and Teory. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Kemmer, S. (1993). Te Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Kitagawa, C. & A. Lehrer (1990). Impersonal uses o personal pronouns.Journal o Pragmatics

14: 739759.Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations o Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application.

Stanord: Stanord University Press.Langacker, R.W. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Langacker, R.W. (2002). Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: Te Epistemic

Footing o Deixis and Reerence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 128.Langacker, R.W. (2004). Aspects o the grammar o finite clauses. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer

(eds.), Language, Culture and Mind. Stanord: CSLI. pp. 535577.Langacker, R.W. (2006). Dimensions o deocusing. In . sunoda and . Kageyama (eds.), Voice

and Grammatical Relations. In Honor o Masayoshi Shibatani. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pp. 115137.

Langacker, R.W. (2007). Control and the mind/body duality: Knowing vs. effecting. Paper pre-sented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conerence. University o Krakow,1520 July.

Langacker, R.W. (2009) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-Whttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-Whttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-Whttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-Whttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-Whttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.001


30/32


Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Marn Arrese, J.I. (2002). Mystification o agency in passive, impersonal and spontaneous situ-ation types. In J.I. Marn Arrese (ed.), Conceptualization o Events in Newspaper Discourse:

Mystification o Agency and Degree o Implication in News Reports. Madrid: UniversidadComplutense. pp. 3154.

Marn Arrese, J.I. (2003). Te middle domain in English and Spanish: Middle and related situa-tion types. In C. Molina, M. Blanco, J.I. Marn Arrese, A.L. Rodrguez & M. Romano (eds.),Cognitive Linguistics in Spain at the urn o the Century, Vol. 1: Grammar and Semantics.Madrid: AELCO & Universidad Autnoma de Madrid. pp. 229252.

Marn Arrese, J.I. (2004). Evidential and epistemic qualifications in the discourse o act andopinion: A comparable corpus study. In J.I. Marn Arrese (ed.), Perspectives on Evidentiality

and Modality. Madrid: Editorial Complutense. pp. 153184.Marn Arrese, J.I. (2006). Epistemic stance and commitment in the discourse o act and opin-

ion in English and Spanish: A comparable corpus study. In A.M. Hornero, M.J. Luzn &S. Murillo (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Applications or the Study o English. Berlin: PeterLang. pp. 141157.

Marn Arrese, J.I. (2007). Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse: A con-trastive case study. Belgian Journal o English Language and Literatures 5: 113132.

Marn Arrese, J.I. (2009). Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity/ intersubjectivity inpolitical discourse: A case study. In A. sangalidis and R. Facchinetti (eds.) Studies onEnglish modality. In honour o Frank R. Palmer. Berlin: Peter Lang. pp. 2352.

Marn Arrese, J.I., Hidalgo, L. & S. Molina (2004). Evidential, epistemic and deontic modal-ity in English and Spanish: Te expression o writer stance in newspaper discourse. InR. Facchinetti & F. Palmer (eds.) English Modality in Perspective: Genre Analysis andContrastive Studies. Frankurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. pp. 121139.

Martin, J.R.. & P.R. White (2005). Te Language o Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.

Matlock, . (1989). Metaphor and the grammaticalization o evidentials. In K. Hall, M. Meachamand R. Shapiro (eds.), Proceedings o the Fifeenth Annual Meeting o the Berkeley LinguisticsSociety. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. pp. 215225

Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic

Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Palmer, F. (2001).Mood and Modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Plungian, V. (2001). Te place o evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal

o Pragmatics 33: 349357.Ridruejo, E. (1999). Modo y modalidad: El modo en las subordinadas sustantivas. In I. Bosque &

V. Demonte (eds.), Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.pp. 32093252.

Sanders, J. (1999). Degree o subjectivity in epistemic modals and perspective representation. In

L. Stadler and C. Eyrich (eds.),Issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pp. 471489.Sanders, J. & W. Spooren (1996). Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study o

Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (3): 241264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.3.241http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.3.241http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.3.241http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.3.241http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.3.241http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.3.241http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369


31/32


de Smet, H. & JC. Verstraete (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics17 (3): 365392.

Tomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic ailure.Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 91112.

raugott, E.C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein and S. Wright (eds.),Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. pp. 3154.

raugott, E.C. & R. Dasher (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

van der Auwera, J. and V. Plungian (1998). Modalitys semantic map. Linguistic ypology 2 (1):79124.

Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Te Semantics o Human Interaction. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.011http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.011http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.011http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.011http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.011


32/32

Documents

Effective vs. Epistemic Stance