Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In accord with Verhagen’s (1996) insights regarding epistemic uses of the predicator (e.g., ), this paper identifies another type of these epistemic uses. It focuses on constructional cues in complex-clause utterances of the form X: whether or not the subject of the embedded clause X is congruent with ‘I’ in the main clause and whether the tense of X is past or non-past. It investigates how it is used epistemically, especially in its colloquial uses; how the constructional cues (the kind of subject and the tense information) influence its construal; and how the different conceptual structures underlying the construals of the commissive and the epistemic modal senses of the construction can be modeled within Mental-spaces theory. It also discusses that the conceptual structures may be differently reified cross-linguistically briefing on the Korean constructs ‘(I) promise’ and ‘(I) assure’.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cutrer, M. L.
    (1994) Time and Tense in Narrative and in Everyday Language. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, San Diego.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
    (1997)  Then in conditionals. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 1–28. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.2.109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2000) Constructions with if, since, and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.111–142). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.2.111
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.2.111 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dancygier, B. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486760
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486760 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dowty, D. R.
    (1985) On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 291–331. 10.1007/BF00630916
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630916 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fauconnier, G.
    (1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  8. (1997) Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C. J. , Lee-Goldman, R. , & Rhodes, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet constructicon. In I. A. Sag & H. C. Boas (Eds.). Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.313–363). Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kwon, I.
    (2012) The Korean evidential marker -te revisited: Its semantic constraints and distancing effects in Mental spaces theory. Constructions and Frames, 4(2), 152–185. 10.1075/cf.4.2.02kwo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.4.2.02kwo [Google Scholar]
  13. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  15. (1991) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Larson, R. K.
    (1991) Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 103–139
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lyons, J.
    (1981) Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511809859
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809859 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sanders, T. , Sanders, J. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2009) Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp.19–60). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.19 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2012) Responsible subjects and discourse causality: How mental spaces and perspective help identifying subjectivity in Dutch backward causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 191–213. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  21. Searle, J. R.
    (1989) How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 535–558. 10.1007/BF00627773
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773 [Google Scholar]
  22. Sweetser, E.
    (2000) Blended spaces and performativity. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3), 305–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Traugott, E. C.
    (1993) The conflict promises/threatens to escalate into war. InProceedings of the 19th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society19 (pp.348–358).
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1996) Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten . In T. Swan & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp.185–210). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Verhagen, A.
    (1996) Sequential conceptualization and linear order. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp.793–817). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2000) “The girl that promised to become something”: An exploration into diachronic subjectification in Dutch. In T. F. Shannon & J. P. Snapper (Eds.), The Berkeley conference on Dutch linguistics 1997 (pp.197–208). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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