Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper discusses the view that subjectifications (i.e. semantic changes through which words come to index speakers’ evaluations or their attitudes towards a proposition) are primarily motivated by speakers’ need for self-expression (Traugott 2010). Approaching the issue from the perspective of animal signalling (Krebs & Dawkins 1984), we propose that semantic subjectifications are at least equally likely to reflect evaluations and attitudes read into utterances by listeners who attempt to read speakers’ minds. We compare speaker-based and listener-based theories with regard to their predictions, sketch ways in which they can be tested and report findings from first attempts at doing so. First, we report evidence from diachronic corpora. Second, we describe a game-theoretic model that relates listener’s interest in speaker intentions to the average degree of speaker-honesty in a population. Third, we report preliminary results of an experiment in which we tested if listeners were more likely to interpret an utterance as indexing speaker subjectivity when they perceived speakers as more powerful. We conclude that the listener-based hypothesis of subjectification is solid enough to warrant further investigation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bühler, K.
    2 (1965)Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Dennett, D. C.
    (1987) The intentional stance. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Engelmann, J. M. , Herrmann, E. , & Tomasello, M.
    (2012) Five-year olds, but not chimpanzees, attempt to manage their reputations. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e48433. 10.1371/journal.pone.0048433
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048433 [Google Scholar]
  4. Gaeta, L.
    (2016) Co-opting exaptation in a theory of language change. In M. Norde & F. van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp.57–92). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.336.03gae
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.336.03gae [Google Scholar]
  5. Grice, H. P.
    (1957) Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  6. Grossman, E. & Polis, S.
    (2014) On the pragmatics of subjectification: The grammaticalization of verbless allative futures (with a case study in Ancient Egyptian). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 46(1), 25–63. 10.1080/03740463.2014.956007
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2014.956007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Haspelmath, M.
    (2000) The relevance of extravagance: a reply to Bart Geurts. Linguistics, 38(4), 789–798. 10.1515/ling.2000.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2000.007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Jakobson, R.
    (1960) Linguistics and poetics. In Th. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.350–359). Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Krebs, J. R. & Dawkins, R.
    (1984) Animal signals: mind reading and manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp.380–402). 2nd ed. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Lass, R.
    (1990) How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics, 26(1), 79–102. 10.1017/S0022226700014432
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014432 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lyons, J.
    (1982) Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor ergo sum?In R. Jarvella und W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action: studies in deixis and related topics (pp.101–124). New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Nowak, M. A.
    (2006) Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 10.2307/j.ctvjghw98
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjghw98 [Google Scholar]
  14. Schwenter, S. A. & Waltereit, R.
    (2010) Presupposition accommodation and language change. In K. Davidse , L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp.75–102). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102.2.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.2.75 [Google Scholar]
  15. Tomasello, M.
    (2009) Why we cooperate. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 10.7551/mitpress/8470.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8470.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Traugott, E. C.
    (2010) Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In K. Davidse , L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp.29–70). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Wobber, V. , Herrmann, E. , Hare, B. , Wrangham, R. & Tomasello, M.
    (2014) Differences in the early cognitive development of children and great apes. Developmental psychobiology, 56(3), 547–573. 10.1002/dev.21125
    https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21125 [Google Scholar]
  18. Woensdregt, M. & Smith, K.
    (2017) Pragmatics and Language Evolution. InOxford Research Encyclopedia. Linguistics (available athttps://oxfordre.com/linguistics/). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.321
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.321 [Google Scholar]
  19. Zöpfl, A.
    (2019) Subjectification and listener power. Vienna: University of Vienna, MA Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): animal communication; game theory; semantic change; subjectification; theory of mind
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