Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This paper tackles the question of how multiple viewpoints emerge through the interplay of different viewpoint parameters within the (i) dynamics of discourse and (ii) their diachronic development. In particular, it will focus on ‘Future of Fate’ (FoF) (e.g. ), i.e. future-in-the-past meanings with potentially distinct values both on the semantic dimension of temporality and the dimension of knowledge attribution. These viewpoint meanings are ‘irregular’ in the sense that they cannot be predicted solely on the basis of the grammatical context of past modal obligation. Based on empirical analyses of German + inf. and the construction in Homeric Greek, it is shown that the – diachronic as well as synchronic – emergence of viewpoints is the result of the interplay between the deictic structure of grammatical elements and the perspectival structure of discourse context.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Deutsches Textarchiv
    Deutsches Textarchiv. Grundlage für ein Referenzkorpus der neuhochdeutschen Sprache, Berlin, www.deutschestextarchiv.de/ (23.122018).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. DWDS. Das Wortauskunftssystem zur deutschen Sprache in Geschichte und Gegenwart
    DWDS. Das Wortauskunftssystem zur deutschen Sprache in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Berlin, https://www.dwds.de (23.122018).
  3. Homer
    Homer: Iliad. Homeri Opera in five volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1920www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0133 (23.122018).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Kali-Korpus
    Kali-Korpus, Leibniz Universität Hannover, www.kali.uni-hannover.de (23–12–2018).
  5. Otfrid: Evangelienbuch
    Otfrid: Evangelienbuch Edited by Oskar Erdmann. 6th edition edited by Ludwig Wolff. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1973.
  6. Abraham, Werner
    2008 “On the Logic of Generalizations about Cross-Linguistic Aspect-Modality Links.” InModality-Aspect Interfaces. Implications and Typological Solutions [Typological Studies in Language 79], ed. byWerner Abraham, and Elisabeth Leiss, 3–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.79.05abr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.79.05abr [Google Scholar]
  7. 2012 “(Inter)Subjectification or Foreign Consciousness/Other’s Mind Alignment as Synchronic and Diachronic Concepts of Change? Conceptualizations and Data Fidelity.” InCovert patterns of modality, ed. byWerner Abraham, and Elisabeth Leiss, 24–78. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Abraham, Werner, and Maiko Nisihiwaki
    2016 “Modal Verbs in German and Definiteness Effects in Verbal Complements – Focusing on Modern Standard German sollen and Middle High German suln ‘shall’.” InDefiniteness Effects: Bilingual, Typological, and Diachronic Variation, ed. bySusan Fischer, Tanja Kupisch, and Esther Rinke, 244–276. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Allan, Rutger J.
    2013 “Exploring Modality’s Semantic Space. Grammaticalization, Subjectification and the Case of ὀφείλω.” Glotta89: 1–46. 10.13109/glot.2013.89.14.1
    https://doi.org/10.13109/glot.2013.89.14.1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Banfield, Anne
    1982Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bassett, Samuel Eliot
    2003 [1966]The Poetry of Homer. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Benveniste, Émile
    1966De la subjectivité dans le langage. Problèmes de la linguistique générale, 1. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bergqvist, Henrik
    2015 “Epistemic Marking and Multiple Perspective. An Introduction.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals68/2: 123–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017 “The Role of ‘Perspective’ in Epistemic Marking.” Lingua186/187: 5–20. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bühler, Karl
    1999 [1934]Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Reprint Jena: Fischer. Stuttgart: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Butt, John, and Carmen Benjamin
    2013New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783474
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783474 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dahl, Östen
    2006 “Future Tense and Future Time Reference.” InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. byKeith Brown, 704–706. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00253‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00253-4 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dancygier, Barbara
    2017 “Viewpoint Phenomena in Constructions and Discourse.” Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics2(1), 37.1–22 [Special issue Perspective-taking, ed. byStefan Hinterwimmer, and Petra B. Schumacher]: 1–22. 10.5334/gjgl.253
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.253 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2016 “Discourse Viewpoint as Network.” InViewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning. Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu, and Arie Verhagen, 13–40. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110365467‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-003 [Google Scholar]
  20. De Jong, Irene
    2007 “Homer.” InTime in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Volume2, ed. byIrene de Jong, and René Nünlist, 17–38. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004165069.i‑542
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004165069.i-542 [Google Scholar]
  21. Depraetere, Ilse
    2012 “Time in Sentences with Modal Verbs.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, ed. byRobert I. Binnick, 989–1019. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. De Smet, Hendrik, and Jean-Christophe Verstraete
    2006 “Coming to Terms with Subjectivity.” Cognitive Linguistics17: 365–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Diewald, Gabriele
    1999Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 208]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110945942
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110945942 [Google Scholar]
  24. Diewald, Gabriele, and Mechthild Habermann
    2005 “Die Entwicklung von werden + Infinitiv als Futurgrammem: ein Beispiel für das Zusammenwirken von Grammatikalisierung, Sprachkontakt und soziokulturellen Faktoren.” InGrammatikalisierung im Deutschen [Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 9], ed. byTorsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans, and Sarah De Groodt, 230–250. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110925364.229
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925364.229 [Google Scholar]
  25. Duijn, Max van, and Arie Verhagen
    . Forthcoming. “Beyond Triadic Communication: a Three-Dimensional Conceptual Space for Modeling Intersubjectivity.” InSubjectivity and Stance. Usage-Based Studies in Epistemic Structuring ed. by Dylan Glynn, and Karolina Krawczak. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ducrot, Oswald
    1984Le dire et le dit. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Eckardt, Regine
    2014The Semantics of Free Indirect Discourse. How Texts Allow Us to Mind-read and Eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004266735
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004266735 [Google Scholar]
  28. Evans, Nick
    2005 “View with a View: Towards a Typology of Multiple Perspective Constructions.” InProceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. byRebecca T. Cover, and Yuni Kim, 93–120. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Faller, Martina
    2006 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface.” web.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/lpw06/fallerpaper.pdf (20.052018).
  30. Fludernik, Monika
    1993The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction: The Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fritz, Gerd
    1997 “Historische Semantik der Modalverben. Problemskizze – Exemplarische Analysen – Forschungsübersicht.” InUntersuchungen zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen, ed. byGerd Fritz, and Thomas Gloning, 1–157. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ghesquiere, Lobke, Lieselotte Brems, and Freek Van de Velde
    2014 “Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification. Typology and Operationalization.” InIntersubjectivity and Intersubjectification. Grammar and Discourse [Current Topics 65], ed. byLieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde, 129–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Glas, Reinhold
    1984‘sollen’ im heutigen Deutsch. Bedeutung und Gebrauch in der Schriftsprache. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gloning, Thomas
    2001 “Gebrauchsweisen von Modalverben und Texttraditionen.” InModalität und Modalverben im Deutschen [Linguistische Berichte: Sonderheft 9], ed. byReimar Müller, and Marga Reis, 177–200. Hamburg: Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hansen, Björn
    2009 “The Hypothetical Use of Polish ‘mieć plus Infinitive’ Revisited.” InVon grammatischen Kategorien und sprachlichen Weltbildern – Die Slavia von der Sprachgeschichte bis zur Politsprache (Festschrift für Daniel Weiss zum 60. Geburtstag) [Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 73], ed. byTilman Berger, Markus Giger, Sibylle Kurt, and Imke Mendoza (eds.), 177–185. München: Kubon & Sagner.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Holvoet, Axel
    2012 “Polish mieć and the Semantic Map of Interpretive Deontics.” Zeitschrift für Slawistik57/2: 129–146. 10.1524/slaw.2012.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1524/slaw.2012.0009 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jakobson, Roman
    1957 “Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb.” InSelected Writings11, 130–147. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kroon, Caroline
    1998 “A Framework for the Description of Latin Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics30: 205–223. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00025‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00025-3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kühner, Raphael, Friedrich Blass, and Bernhard Gerth
    1870Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Volume2/1. Hannover: Hahn.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Łaziński, Marek
    2001 “Was für ein Perfekt gibt es im modernen Polnisch? Bemerkungen zum Artikel ‚Gibt es ein Perfekt im modernen Polnisch?‘ von H. Weydt und A. Kazimierczak.” Linguistik online8/1. URLhttps://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/article/view/979/1637 (05.042018).
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Maché, Jakob
    2008 “The Autopsy of a Modal – Insights from the Historical Development of German.” InModality-Aspect Interfaces. Implications and Typological Solutions [Typological Studies in Language 79], ed. byWerner Abraham, and Elisabeth Leiss, 385–415. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.79.27mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.79.27mac [Google Scholar]
  43. Markopoulos, Theodore
    2008The Future in Greek. From Ancient to Medieval. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539857.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539857.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Narrog, Heiko
    2017 “Three Types of Subjectivity, Three Types of Intersubjectivity, their Dynamicization and a Synthesis.” InAspects of Grammaticalization. (Inter)Subjectification and Directionality, ed. byDaniёl Van Olmen, Hubert Cuyckens, and Lobke Ghesquière, 19–46. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Öhlschläger, Günther
    1989Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sanders, José
    1994 Perspective in Narrative Discourse. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
  47. Schrott, Angela
    1997 “Futur du passé im Französischen der Gegenwart.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch48/1: 41–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Smirnova, Elena
    2012 “On Some Problematic Aspects of Subjectification.” Language Dynamics and Change2: 34–58. 10.1163/221058212X653076
    https://doi.org/10.1163/221058212X653076 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Spronck, Stef
    2012 “Minds Divided. Speaker Attitudes in Quotatives.” InQuotatives. Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. byIsabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 71–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.07spr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.07spr [Google Scholar]
  51. 2015 “Stance as Participant Structure: A Jakobsonian Approach to the Pragmatics and Semantics of Evidentiality.” InEvidentiality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface [Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29], ed. byBert Cornillie, and Juana I. Marín Arrese, 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Quoted version: people.anu.edu.au/stef.spronck/publications.html (20.052018).
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Sugayama, Kensei
    2006 “The Grammar of Be To: From a Word Grammar Point of View.” InWord Grammar. New Perspectives on a Theory of Language Structure, ed. byKensei Sugayama, and Richard A. Hudson, 90–108. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sweetser, Eve
    2012 “Introduction: Viewpoint and Perspective in Language and Gesture, from the Ground Up.” InViewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, and Eve Sweetser, 1–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1989 “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.” Language65: 31–55. 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2003 “From subjectification to intersubjectification.” InMotives for language change, ed. byRaymond Hickey, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2010 “(Inter)Subjectivity and (Inter)Subjectification. A Reassessment.” InSubjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. byKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Herbert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  57. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2005 “The semantics and pragmatics of composite mood marking: The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia.” Linguistic Typology9: 223–268. 10.1515/lity.2005.9.2.223
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.2.223 [Google Scholar]
  58. Visconti, Jacqueline
    2013 “Facets of Subjectification.” Language Sciences36: 7–17. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wakker, Gerry C.
    2006 “Future Auxiliaries or Not.” InWord Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek. Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’ Held in Madrid on 18–21 June 2003, ed. byEmilio Crespo, Jesús de La Villa, and A. R. Revuelta (eds), 237–255. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2007 “Intentions and Future Realisations in Herodotus.” InThe Language of Literature: Linguistic Approaches to Classical Texts, ed. byRutger Allan, and Michel Buijs, 168–187. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004156548.i‑251.70
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004156548.i-251.70 [Google Scholar]
  61. Zeman, Sonja
    2013 “Zur Diachronie der Modalverben: sollen zwischen Temporalität, Modalität und Evidentialität.” InFunktionen von Modalität [Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 55], ed. byWerner Abraham, and Elisabeth Leiss, 335–336. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110333091.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333091.335 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2014 “(C)Overt Modality and its Perspectival Effects on the Textual Surface.” InModes of Modality. Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar [Studies in Language Complementary Series 149], ed. byWerner Abraham, and Elisabeth Leiss (eds.), 457–484. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.149.15zem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.15zem [Google Scholar]
  63. 2017 “Confronting Perspectives. Modeling Perspectival Complexity in Language and Cognition.” Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics2/1: 6 [Special issue Perspective-taking, ed. byStefan Hinterwimmer, and Petra B. Schumacher]: 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2018a “Expressing the Selves: Subject Splits and Viewpoint Hierarchies in Multiple Perspective Constructions.” InExpressing the Self: Cultural Diversity and Cognitive Universals, ed. byMinyao Huang, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 143–157. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198786658.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198786658.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2018b “Zukunft in der Grammatik: Neues vom Schicksalsfutur.” InDie Zukunft der Grammatik – die Grammatik der Zukunft [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 92], ed. byElisabeth Leiss, and Sonja Zeman, 449–481. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 2018c What is a Narration – And Why Does It Matter?InLinguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Language [Linguistics today/Linguistik aktuell 247], ed. byAnnika Hübl, and Markus Steinbach, 174–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.247.08zem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.08zem [Google Scholar]
  67. . Forthcoming. Wer spricht? Disambiguierungsfaktoren bei der Perspektivensetzung im narrativen Diskurs. Linguistische Berichte [Sonderband „Rede- und Gedankenwiedergabe in narrativen Strukturen – Ambiguitäten und Varianz“ ed. by Stefan Engelberg & Irene Rapp].
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): epistemicity; evidentiality; future-of-fate; modality; narrativity; perspective; subjectification
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