1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Constructing Collectivity
  4. Chapter

Singular perception, multiple perspectives through ‘we’

Constructing intersubjective meaning in English and German

image of Singular perception, multiple perspectives through ‘we’

This paper presents the results of a corpus-based investigation of the role of the first-person plural pronoun in the construction of intersubjective meaning among evidential perception verbs of sight and sound in English and German (with most attention being given to written rather than spoken data). Whereas the first-person singular pronoun only signifies that the evidence rests solely with the speaker/writer, the first-person plural pronoun allows a much wider range of intersubjective meanings concerning the nature of the evidence. It is also shown how English and German perception verbs express intersubjective evidential meaning in a number of different complementation patterns, how the type of this meaning is often linked to these patterns, and how the use of the first-person plural pronoun can vary among and within these constructions. The possibility of a diachronic development in this domain is also given some attention, hence data are drawn from the Early Modern and Modern periods of these two languages.

  • Affiliations: 1: The University of Nottingham, UK

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004. Evidentiality . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Benveniste, Emile
    . 1971 (1966). Problems in General Linguistics , Mary E.Meek (trans). Coral Gables, FL: The University of Miami Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas and EdwardFinegan
    . 1989. “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and effect.” Text 9(1): 93–124.10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bréal, Michel.
    1900. Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning , Mrs. HenryCust (trans). London: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2012. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe, Wallace
    . 1986. “Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing.” In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology , WallaceChafe and JohannaNichols (eds), 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Diewald, Gabriele and ElenaSmirnova
    . 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization . Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110241037
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gisborne, Nikolas
    . 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs . Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gisborne, Nikolas and JasperHolmes
    . 2007. “A history of English evidential verbs of appearance.” English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S1360674306002097
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306002097 [Google Scholar]
  10. Grund, Peter J.
    2012. “The nature of knowledge: Evidence and evidentiality in the witness depositions from the Salem witch trials.” American Speech 87(1): 7–38. doi: 10.1215/00031283‑1599941
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-1599941 [Google Scholar]
  11. Haan, Ferdinand de.
    2001. “The relation between modality and evidentiality.” In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen , ReimarMüller and MargaReis (eds), 201–216. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Harm, Volker
    . 2000. Regularitäten des Semantischen Wandels bei Wahrnehmungsverben des Deutschen . Stuttgart: Steiner.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hunston, Susan and Francis, Gill.
    2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hyland, Ken
    . 2005. “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ifantidou, Elly
    . 2001. Evidentials and Relevance . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.86
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jakobson, Roman
    . 1971 (1957). “Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb.” In Roman Jakobson: Selected Writings. Vol. II: Word and Language . The Hague: Mouton, 130–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Joseph, Brian D.
    2003. “Evidentials: Summation, questions, prospects.” In Studies in Evidentiality , Alexandra Y.Aikhenvald and R. M. W.Dixon (eds), 307–327. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.54.17jos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.17jos [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark.
    2003 [1980]. Metaphors We Live By . 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1990. “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1999. “Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency.” In Historical Semantics and Cognition , AndreasBlank and PeterKoch (eds), 147–175. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804195.147
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195.147 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom.
    1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity . Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Nuyts, Jan
    . 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001. Mood and Modality . 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  24. Smirnova, Elena
    . 2006. Die Entwicklung der Konstruktion würde + Infinitiv im Deutschen: Eine Funktional-semantische Analyse unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung Sprachhistorischer Aspekte. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110201963
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110201963 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sweetser, Eve E.
    1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  26. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    . 1982. “From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization.” In Perspectives in Historical Linguistics , W. P.Lehmann and YakovMalkiel (eds), 245–271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.24.09clo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.09clo [Google Scholar]
  27. . 1989. “On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change.” Language 65: 31–55. doi: 10.2307/414841
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  28. . 1997. “Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten.” In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives , TorilSwan and OlafJansen Westvik (eds), 185–210. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110889932.185
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.185 [Google Scholar]
  29. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.
    2002. Regularity in Semantic Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Verhagen, Arie
    . 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Viberg, Åke.
    1983. “The verbs of perception: A typological study.” Linguistics 21: 123–162. doi: 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  32. Whitt, Richard J.
    2009. “Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs.” Lingua 119(7): 1083–1095. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010. Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German . Oxford/Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978‑3‑0353‑0306‑3
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0353-0306-3 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2011. “(Inter)Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(1): 347–360. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015 [Google Scholar]
  35. Willett, Thomas
    . 1988. “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97. doi: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004. Evidentiality . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Benveniste, Emile
    . 1971 (1966). Problems in General Linguistics , Mary E.Meek (trans). Coral Gables, FL: The University of Miami Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas and EdwardFinegan
    . 1989. “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and effect.” Text 9(1): 93–124.10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bréal, Michel.
    1900. Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning , Mrs. HenryCust (trans). London: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2012. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe, Wallace
    . 1986. “Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing.” In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology , WallaceChafe and JohannaNichols (eds), 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Diewald, Gabriele and ElenaSmirnova
    . 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization . Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110241037
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gisborne, Nikolas
    . 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs . Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gisborne, Nikolas and JasperHolmes
    . 2007. “A history of English evidential verbs of appearance.” English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S1360674306002097
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306002097 [Google Scholar]
  10. Grund, Peter J.
    2012. “The nature of knowledge: Evidence and evidentiality in the witness depositions from the Salem witch trials.” American Speech 87(1): 7–38. doi: 10.1215/00031283‑1599941
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-1599941 [Google Scholar]
  11. Haan, Ferdinand de.
    2001. “The relation between modality and evidentiality.” In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen , ReimarMüller and MargaReis (eds), 201–216. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Harm, Volker
    . 2000. Regularitäten des Semantischen Wandels bei Wahrnehmungsverben des Deutschen . Stuttgart: Steiner.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hunston, Susan and Francis, Gill.
    2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hyland, Ken
    . 2005. “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ifantidou, Elly
    . 2001. Evidentials and Relevance . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.86
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jakobson, Roman
    . 1971 (1957). “Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb.” In Roman Jakobson: Selected Writings. Vol. II: Word and Language . The Hague: Mouton, 130–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Joseph, Brian D.
    2003. “Evidentials: Summation, questions, prospects.” In Studies in Evidentiality , Alexandra Y.Aikhenvald and R. M. W.Dixon (eds), 307–327. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.54.17jos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.17jos [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark.
    2003 [1980]. Metaphors We Live By . 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1990. “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1999. “Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency.” In Historical Semantics and Cognition , AndreasBlank and PeterKoch (eds), 147–175. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804195.147
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195.147 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom.
    1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity . Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Nuyts, Jan
    . 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001. Mood and Modality . 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  24. Smirnova, Elena
    . 2006. Die Entwicklung der Konstruktion würde + Infinitiv im Deutschen: Eine Funktional-semantische Analyse unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung Sprachhistorischer Aspekte. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110201963
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110201963 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sweetser, Eve E.
    1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  26. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    . 1982. “From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization.” In Perspectives in Historical Linguistics , W. P.Lehmann and YakovMalkiel (eds), 245–271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.24.09clo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.09clo [Google Scholar]
  27. . 1989. “On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change.” Language 65: 31–55. doi: 10.2307/414841
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  28. . 1997. “Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten.” In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives , TorilSwan and OlafJansen Westvik (eds), 185–210. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110889932.185
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.185 [Google Scholar]
  29. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.
    2002. Regularity in Semantic Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Verhagen, Arie
    . 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Viberg, Åke.
    1983. “The verbs of perception: A typological study.” Linguistics 21: 123–162. doi: 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  32. Whitt, Richard J.
    2009. “Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs.” Lingua 119(7): 1083–1095. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010. Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German . Oxford/Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978‑3‑0353‑0306‑3
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0353-0306-3 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2011. “(Inter)Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(1): 347–360. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015 [Google Scholar]
  35. Willett, Thomas
    . 1988. “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97. doi: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270849-pbns.239.06whi
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270849-pbns.239.06whi
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270849
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error