You are on page 1of 34

In Chris Hart (ed.) (2011). Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 193-223. (ISBN 978 9027206343)

Effective vs. Epistemic Stance and Subjectivity in Political


Discourse

Legitimising Strategies and Mystification of Responsibility

Juana I. Marn Arrese


Universidad Complutense de Madrid

1. Introduction

This paper presents a model for the characterization of the speaker/writers expression of
stance and subjectivity in discourse, which might reveal and account for similarities and
differences in interpersonal styles, as well as across genres and languages. In characterising
the domain of stance, I draw on Langackers (2009: 291) distinction between the effective and
the epistemic level: Epistemic relations are those which hold at the level of knowledge, and
thus involve conceptions of reality. By contrast, effective relations hold at the level of reality
itself. The framework proposed in this chapter distinguishes two categories of stance:
effective, which pertains to the ways in which the speaker/writer, through stancetaking acts,
tries to exert control or influence on the course of reality itself, and epistemic stance pertains
to speaker/writers stancetaking acts concerning knowledge about the events designated.

Meanings expressed by linguistic resources of stance typically include both contentful and
procedural aspects (Blakemore 1987; Traugott and Dasher 2002). Amongst other resources of
epistemic stance, evidential expressions pertain to the sources of knowledge whereby the
speaker validates the information in the communicated proposition, and epistemic modal
expressions concern the speakers estimation of the veracity of an event and the likelihood of
its realization (Sanders and Spooren 1996; Mushin 2001; Plungian 2001; Aikhenvald 2004;
Marn Arrese 2004, inter alia). Effective stance resources involve expressions of deonticity,
assessments and attitudinals. All these stance resources are indexical of the speaker/writers
subjective and intersubjective positioning with respect to the communicated proposition
257
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(Langacker 1991, 2000; Marn Arrese 2007, 2009), including the degree to which they
assume personal responsibility for the evaluation of the information or whether the
assessment is potentially shared by others (Nuyts 2001).

Political language use is a form of communication which is particularly sensitive to distortion


subject to the interests and power relations of participants; as such, it is a preferred locus for
the strategic use of language, in the Habermasian sense. It will be argued that the use of stance
resources involves strategies used by speakers/writers to manage their interests and thus
serves the strategic functions of legitimisation and coercion (Chilton and Schffner 1997;
Chilton 2004). As Chilton (2004: 117) observes, one basic type of legitimising strategy is
essentially epistemic in that it has to do with the speakers claim to have better knowledge,
recognition of the real facts. A second type of legitimisation strategy is deontic, where the
speaker claims, explicitly or implicitly, to be not only right in a cognitive sense, but right
in a moral sense. The combined use of the two types of legitimisation strategies can be
judged coercive in that their main rhetorical goal is to persuade (see also Hart and Luke
2007).

Mystification of responsibility for the realization of events involves dimensions of defocusing


of agency, realized by means of expressions in the middle-spontaneous-passive systems
(Kemmer 1993; Marn Arrese 2002, 2003, Langacker 2006, inter alia). However, the
evocation of responsibility for the communicated proposition crucially involves the domain of
subjectivity/intersubjectivity, that is, the degree to which the speaker as conceptualizer is
explicit and salient in the discourse or is implicitly evoked, and the degree to which the
expressions index the speaker or an incompletely defined collectivity, or some implicit
conceptualizer which may be construed as virtual or generalized. By means of stance
resources, speakers/writers not only manage their interests with respect to their goal of
persuasion, but also manage their responsibility for the use of these legitimising strategies,
through strategies of mystification such as implicitness and the appeal to shared
responsibility.

In this chapter I present results of a case study on the use of these linguistic resources in
political discourse in English and Spanish. The texts analyzed include two genres of
argumentative discourse: political speech and parliamentary statement. Through this
comparative study, my aim is to reveal the characterizing interpersonal features of the

258
Juana I. Marn Arrese

speakers in relation to the domains of stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity as well as


possible intercultural differences in political discourse practices.

This chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 includes some observations on the notions of
stance, subjectivity and political discourse. The corpus study is described in section 3. The
categories of stance, and the results of the corpus study, are presented in Section 4. The results
for subjectivity and intersubjectivity are discussed in section 5. The final section is devoted to
the conclusions.

2. Stance, Subjectivity and Political Discourse

2.1 Effective vs. Epistemic Stance


The multifaceted nature of stance has been associated with phenomena such as evaluation,
subjectivity, and positioning in discourse. Stance refers to the particular viewpoint or
enunciational position of the speaker/writer or of some other subject of conception, which
reflects their attitudes, assessments and knowledge concerning the designated event and/or the
communicated proposition. According to Biber et al. (1999), stance involves three major
domains: epistemic stance, attitudinal stance, and style. Our concern here is with those stance
devices or indices which overtly express an evaluative frame for some other proposition,
which Biber at al. (1999: 967) term grammatical stance devices. These linguistic resources for
the expression of speaker/writer stance include modal and evidential expressions, assessments
and attitudinal expressions, as well as some forms of tense-aspect-mood systems.

Stance involves a subjective component of attitude and evaluation, and a dialogic construction
of enunciational position which is intersubjective in nature. From a dialogistic perspective,
Martin and White (2005: 92) note that there is a tradition in discourse studies in which all
utterances are seen as in some way stanced or attitudinal. These linguistics resources
provide the means for the authorial voice to position itself with respect to, and hence to
engage with, the other voices and alternative positions construed as being in play in the
current communicative context (Martin and White 2005: 94). These forms of dialogistic
positioning reflect a speaker/writers interpersonal style and in addition produce specific
rhetorical effects which speakers/writers may bring to bear on the overall function of
discourse as social practice.

259
Juana I. Marn Arrese

Following Englebretson (2007), stance may be defined as a dialogically constructed form of


social action, which is public and interpretable, and consequential in that it involves
responsibility and consequences for the stancetaker in social terms. The stancetaking act is
described by DuBois (2007: 163) in the following terms: Stance is a public act by a social
actor, achieved dialogically through overt communicative means, of simultaneously
evaluating objects, positioning subjects (self and others), and aligning with other subjects,
with respect to any salient dimension of the sociocultural field.

The framework presented in this chapter posits two macro-categories of stance: effective and
epsitemic stance. The category of effective stance pertains to the positioning of the
speaker/writer with respect to the realization of events, to the ways in which the
speaker/writer carries out a stance act aimed at determining or influencing the course of
reality itself. Epistemic stance refers to the positioning of the speaker/writer with respect to
knowledge concerning the realization of the event, to the ways in which the speaker/writer
carries out a stance act aimed at estimating the likelihood of an event and/or judging the
validity of a proposition designating the event. This framework allows for finer-grained
distinctions within each category, and systematically relates speaker/writers stance choices
with differing degrees of subjectivity/intersubjectivity (Marn Arrese 2007, 2009).

2.2 Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity


The formulation of subjectivity as the capacity of the speaking self to view him/herself as
subject of enunciation (sujet dnonciation) is found in the seminal work by Benveniste
(1966 [1958]). He drew attention to the fact that the relationship of intersubjectivity between
the speaker/writer and addressee/reader is a basic condition for linguistic communication. As
Finegan (1995: 1-2) defines the notion, subjectivity concerns expression of self and the
representation of a speakers (or, more generally, a locutionary agents) perspective or point
of view in discourse (a speakers imprint). The subjectivity of discourse is a crucial factor
or facet of language, since it concerns language as an expression an incarnation, even of
perceiving, feeling, speaking subjects. Similarly, Lyons (1977, 1995) and Traugott (1995) are
concerned with the expression of self, with how the semantics of an expression relates to the
speaker (subjectivity) or whether it is non-speaker-related (objectivity). An objective use of
language has been typically associated with linguistic expressions where the speaker/writers
viewpoint is not explicitly coded (i.e., nominalization, passive, etc.). The use of more

260
Juana I. Marn Arrese

subjective language is associated with various ways in which the speaker/writer is present,
either through reference to the source of their information (i.e. evidentiality), to their
epistemological stance (i.e., epistemic modals), or through their evaluations (i.e., attitudinal
expressions) regarding the realization of events.

Langackers (1991) notion of subjectivity is explained drawing on perceptual notions. In a


situation of optimal viewing arrangement there is maximal asymmetry between the viewer or
subject of perception and the scene viewed or object of perception. The viewer (subject of
conception) remains offstage, thus being implicit and construed with maximal subjectivity,
whereas the entity which is the focus of attention (the object of conception) is onstage, and
is salient and objectively construed. In contrast, in a situation of egocentric viewing
arrangement, the viewer goes onstage, thus becoming more salient and objectified.

In terms of the conceptual analogue of these perceptual notions, the speaker is by default the
subject of conception, and the object of conception is the entity which is put onstage and
profiled by an expression. In the default situation, the speaker/writer as conceptualizer is
offstage, a ground element, implicitly evoked, and hence construed subjectively. In contrast,
when the speaker/writer, or some other facet of the ground, is placed onstage, made explicit
and salient as part of the object of conception, they are objectively construed. According to
Langacker (2002: 17),

An entity is construed objectively to the extent that it is distinct from the conceptualizer and is
put onstage as a salient object of conception. Being the focal point within the onstage region, an
expression's profile has a high degree of objectivity. An entity receives a subjective construal to
the extent that it functions as the subject of conception but not as the object. The highest degree
of subjectivity thus attaches to the speaker and hearer, specifically in regard to those expressions
that do not in any way include them within their scope.

As de Smet and Verstraete (2006: 369) point out, both Langackers subjective and
objective are speaker-related, and therefore subjective (in Traugotts terms).

An additional facet of subjectivity pertains to the notion of speaker/writer commitment and/or


responsibility for the communicated proposition. Nuyts (2001) conceives the dimension of
subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity as the degree to which the speaker assumes personal

261
Juana I. Marn Arrese

responsibility for the evaluation of the evidence (subjectivity) or whether the assessment is
potentially shared by others (intersubjectivity).

On the basis of these notions, my own proposal considers the interaction of two parameters of
subjectivity/intersubjectivity: degree of salience and explicitness of the role of the
conceptualizer, and personal vs. shared responsibility.

2.3 Texts, Genres and Discourses


Texts are situated in social events, and are shaped by social structures and social practices, 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 of the relations that they set up
between elements of texts. In the process of meaning-creation, there is a representation
component of meaning, an action component, and an identification component, the latter
pertaining to the relations with oneself, and thus to subjectivity. As Fairclough (2003: 27)
notes:

...texts simultaneously represent aspects of the world (the physical world, the social world, the
mental world); enact social relations between participants in social events and the attitudes,
desires and values of participants; and coherently and cohesively connect parts of texts together,
and connect texts with their situational contexts.

Social structures are abstract entities whose relationship to events is mediated by


intermediate organizational entities or social practices. In terms of language and
communication, these correspond to what Fairclough (1992) terms orders of discourse. As
Fairclough (2003: 24-25) defines them,

... orders of discourse are the social organization and control of linguistic variation, and their
elements (discourses, genres, styles) are correspondingly not purely linguistic categories but
categories which cut across the division between language and non-language, the discoursal
and the non-discoursal.

Discourse is present in social practice in the form of genres, that is, as different ways of
interacting discoursally (i.e., a political speech), in the form of discourses, in the sense of
representations of social practices (i.e., the political discourse of New Labour), or as styles, that

262
Juana I. Marn Arrese

is, as constituting particular ways of being, particular social or personal identities (Fairclough
2003: 26).

The notion of genre as a discoursal activity crucially involves the purposes of the activity. In
discussing purposes, Habermas (1984) distinction between communicative and strategic
action is particularly relevant, that is, interaction oriented to arriving at understanding, as
opposed to interaction oriented to getting results (Fairclough 2003: 71). Fairclough (2000)
argues that certain genres are instrumental in sustaining the institutional structure of
contemporary society, these are the genres of governance. They are purpose-driven genres in
which interaction is predominantly strategic (i.e., political speeches, parliamentary statements).

Genres contribute to create relations between different types of social agents, organizations,
groups, or individuals. These relations vary in dimensions such as power, or social
hierarchy, and solidarity, or social distance (Brown and Gilman 1960). Political discourse,
in the form of political speeches, parliamentary statements, etc., is one such instance of
communication between organizations (government, political parties) and individuals, in
which interaction is basically strategic. Since texts and interactions are open to creativity, we
may find cases where texts blend or hybridize genres, as in the widespread use of
conversational features in different genres such as news broadcasts and other forms of public
discourse (conversationalization of public discourse, Fairclough 1992). As Fairclough
(2003: 76) notes, genres of governance are pervasively characterized by simulated social
relations which [...] tend to mystify social hierarchy and social distance. A manifestation of
this phenomenon is the case of political leaders such as Tony Blair, who appear to be
speaking for themselves as individuals rather than in their political role (i.e. as Prime
Minister). The strategic use of personal reference (I believe), the use of inclusive we, all
contribute to evoke the type of interaction found in equal encounters, characterized by
minimum social hierarchy and social distance. Though the analysis of the ideological
implications of the use of these resources is beyond the scope of the present research paper,
we will bear them in mind in the discussion of the rhetorical strategies of the speakers.

263
Juana I. Marn Arrese

3. The Corpus Study

Discursive and textual articulation in the different discourse domains, understood as different
contexts of communication between speaker/writer and hearer/reader, is, I believe, a product
of the interaction between conceptualization, communicative intentions and psycho-social and
cultural norms and values. The study of the manifestation of these factors in language will
thus contribute to understand how texts and discourses are shaped, and the way different
speakers/writers engage in communication mediated by their roles, their personal or political
goals, and the various cultural discourse practices.

On the micro-level of identity, the use of stance resources contributes to index ideological
positioning and political identity, which is reflected in these politicians stancetaking acts and
their expression of inter/subjectivity, and in the similarities and/or differences in their
interpersonal styles and their strategic use of language.

It is hypothesized that variation in the use of stance resources, and in the expression of
inter/subjectivity, by speakers/writers engaging in a particular social role (President, Prime
Minister, President of Government), and their corresponding personal and political goals, in
the various discourse domains (political discourse) and genres (political speech, parliamentary
statement), will reveal characteristic differences between the speakers interpersonal styles.
Variation will also reveal characteristic differences of discourse practices across languages
and cultures. Though no claims can be made regarding intercultural differences on the basis of
the corpus used in this case study, it is relevant to note that certain features which exhibit
significant differences in these samples of political discourse have also been found in previous
studies of journalistic discourse (Marn Arrese 2004, 2006; Marn Arrese et al. 2004), and
political discourse (Marn Arrese 2007).

3.1 The Texts


This paper aims to characterize the interpersonal style1 of three politicians George Bush,
former President of the USA, Anthony Blair, former British Prime Minister, and Jos Mara
Aznar Lpez, former President of Government of Spain in terms of their expression of
stance and subjectivity in parliamentary statements and political speeches. In this case study I
have worked with the transcripts of the following three texts2:

264
Juana I. Marn Arrese

a. (B-SP): George Bush, President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, Speech at Cincinnati
Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal, Cincinnati, Ohio, 7 October 2002 (3,374
words)
b. (BL-PS): Anthony Blair, Prime Ministers statement opening Iraq debate in Parliament,
18 March 2003 (4,874 words)
c. (A-PS): Jos M Aznar Lpez, Comparecencia del Presidente de Gobierno ante el Pleno
de la Cmara, para informar sobre la situacin internacional en relacin con Irak y la
posicin del Gobierno de la nacin, 18 March 2003 (3,811 words) (President of
Governments statement in Parliamentary plenary session to inform about the
international situation in relation to Iraq and the position of the Government).

The Parliamentary statements by Blair and Aznar, arguing in favour of military action against
Iraq, take place only two days after the statement issued by US President George W. Bush,
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish President of Government Jose Maria Aznar at
their summit meeting in the Azores, on 16 March 2003. Both statements are very similar in
content and proposals to the speech by President George Bush at Cincinnati Museum Center.

3.2 Research Objectives and Procedure


In order to test the hypotheses, the following research objectives are defined. The aim is to:

(i) Characterize the presence and patterning of the expression of effective and epistemic
stance in the discourse of the three politicians, by identifying, classifying and
quantifying the various linguistic resources used;
(ii) Reveal the role of these linguistic resources as indices of differing degrees of
subjectivity and intersubjectivity;
(iii) Establish comparisons of the similarities or differences in the use of these resources by
the three speakers, in order to reveal the rhetorical potential of these resources, and the
exploitation of their persuasive effects by the speakers.

The texts were examined and tagged manually in the first instance to identify the tokens of
effective and epistemic markers present. An electronic search using Monoconc was carried
out to ensure that all the instances present in the texts had been identified. The examples
found were then analysed and tagged according to the parameters and dimensions further
specified in sections 3 and 4. The categories identified and the tags used are the following:

265
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(i) Stance: EF-Effective stance, EP-Epistemic stance; and


(ii) Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity: SE-Subjective Explicit, IE-Intersubjective Explicit, SI-
Subjective Implicit, IO-Intersubjective Opaque.

The data were submitted to further analysis for the quantitative results. The chi-square test
was run to establish the cases where differences between frequencies were significant. The
value of significance was established at p<0.05. The chi-square provides a method for testing
the degree to which there is association between the variables in a contingency table. The null
hypothesis H0 assumes that there is no association between the variables, while the alternative
hypothesis Ha claims that variation is due to association between the variables. The chi-square
test measures the divergence of the observed values from the expected values under the null
hypothesis of no association. If the P-value is significant, it indicates that there is some
association between the variables, so that the observed values are not due to random variation.

4. Effective and Epistemic Stance in Discourses

In this paper I present a proposal for the study of stance which integrates Langackers (2007,
2009) distinction between the effective and the epistemic levels with prior work on stance and
engagement (Biber et al. 1999; Brandt 2004; Martin and White 2005), and on modality and
evidentiality in discourse (Marn Arrese 2004, 2006, 2007).

Effective stance pertains to speaker/writers evaluative positioning towards the realization of


the event, in the expression of their attitudes and assessments regarding the designated event.
Expressions within this domain include various forms of event modality (Palmer 2001: 22),
that is, deontic and volitive modality, the modal domains of participant-internal or participant-
external possibility and necessity (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998), as well attitudinal
predicates expressing speaker/writers inclination, intention or necessity with regard to the
occurrence of the event (I hope, I insist, This requires,...).

Epistemic stance pertains to speaker/writers estimations regarding the prospects for


realization of the profiled clausal process (p) designating the event, that is, the possibility,
the prediction or the certainty of ps realization (Langacker 2007: 6-7), and indications of the

266
Juana I. Marn Arrese

validity status of the communicated proposition. Expressions of epistemic stance include the
domain of propositional modality, which comprises epistemic and evidential modality
(Palmer 2001: 8) (May/might, I think, It seems,...).

4.1 Effective Stance


Within the category of effective stance, as we can see in Table 1, I have included a variety of
expressions which describe speakers attitudes towards an event: judgements of desirability,
intentionality, necessity or possibility of the event occurring.

EFFECTIVE STANCE (EF)


Deonticity: Deontic modals and modals of must, should ...
possibility and necessity, and adverbs, can, could, cannot ...
predicative adjs. and nominals. have to, need to ...
It is necessary to..., It is impossible to ...
Assessments: Personal and impersonal That requires ...; We are required to...;
predicates expressing desirability, It is essential to...
requirement or normativity It is right to ...; It is time to...; It is fair to ...
Attitudinals: Modals of volition and I will/won't, I would not ...
personal predicates expressing inclination, I wanted/intended to ..., I hoped ...
intention, or commitment. I am/was determined to ...
Directives: Personal predicates of We urging...
communication used with a directive Let me make it clear...
illocutionary force. Imperatives and Let us recall...
hortatives.

Table 1. Effective Stance markers

Deonticity: Deontic modality refers to the enabling or compelling circumstances external to


the participant as some person(s), often the speaker, and/or as some social or ethical norm(s)
permitting or obliging the participant to engage in the state of affairs (Van der Auwera and
Plungian 1998: 81).

(1) Knowing these realities, America must <[[EF]], SI> not ignore the threat gathering against us.
(B-SP:97)
(2) ..., to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to
<[[EF]], SI> be very different. (B-SP:101)

Within the domain of possibility and necessity, we also find expressions which identify either
the participants ability or capacity, or their need to carry out the event designated.
Alternatively, they may refer to the circumstances external to the participant which make the
event possible or necessary.
267
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(3) Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot <[[EF]], SI> wait for the final proof -- the smoking
gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud... (B-SP:98)

Assessments: This category includes matrix predicates which designate the speakers
expression of judgements of desirability, necessity or possibility of the occurrence of a
particular situation (That requires,...), and other non-verbal expressions (duty, ...), as for
example.

(4) ...law regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our
security requires <[[EF]], IO> that we confront both. (B-SP:92)
(5) ..., we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty <[[EF]], IE> to
prevent the worst from occurring. (B-SP:99)

The category also includes miscellaneous expressions involving impersonal constructions


which indicate generalized inclination or advisability of the events realization, or which
describe the emotive reaction of the speaker with respect to the occurrence of the event (It is
crucial, It is urgent, It is right, It is time to,...) (cf. Bhatt 2006: covert forms of modality).

(6) To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial <[[EF]], IO> to winning the war
on terror. (B-SP:90)

In Spanish, verbal periphrastic expressions of deonticity include modal verbs deber


(must/should), poder (can) + infinitive, or the verbs haber/tener (have) + subordinator que
(that) + infinitive, as well as modal periphrasis, haber de (have of) + infinitive. Non-verbal
markers include predicative adjectives and nominals followed 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 of/to) (Gmez Torrego 1999;
Ridruejo 1999).

(7) Lamentablemente, hemos de constatar que Sadam Husein ha despreciado su ltima oportunidad
y debe <[[EF]], SI>, por tanto, hacer frente a las consecuencias de su decisin de violar
flagrantemente las normas de ...(A-PS:53) (Regrettably, we have to confirm that Sadam Husein
has disregarded his last chance and must <[[EF]], SI>, therefore, face the consequences of his
decision to flagrantly violate the norms of ...)

268
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(8) Por eso Espaa no puede <[[EF]], SI> mirar hacia otro lado en una crisis como sta. (A-PS:71)
(That is why Spain cannot <[[EF]], SI> look 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]], SI> reafirmar la solidaridad del vnculo entre Europa y
Norteamrica y ... (A-PS:87) (If we want a world in peace and secure, in which democracies are
not threatened or blackmailed, we have to <[[EF]], SI> reaffirm the solidarity of the link
between Europe and North America and ...)

Expressions of assessment referring to desirability, requirement or normativity found 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 for...), as can be seen in
the following examples.

(10) Una paz segura y estable requiere <[[EF]], SI> sin duda de gobiernos que sepan tomar
decisiones y... (A-PS:111) (A secure and stable peace requires <[[EF]], SI> no doubt
governments which are capable of taking decisions and ...)
(11) Creo, sin duda, que es lo que corresponde hacer <[[EF]], IO> en un rgimen de democracia
representativa como el nuestro. (A-PS:47) (I believe, no doubt, that this is what ought to be
done <[[EF]], IO> in a regime of representative democracy such as ours.)
(12) El desarme del rgimen de Sadam Husein es esencial <[[EF]], IO> para que el mundo viva con
menos amenazas,... (A-PS:66) (Disarming the regime of Sadam Husein is essential <[[EF]], IO>
so that the world may live with fewer threats, ...)
(13) Realmente, en este caso es urgente <[[EF]], IO> advertir que se va aplicar ya la legalidad
internacional. (A-PS:51) (Really, in this case it is urgent <[[EF]], IO> to warn that international
law will be aplied.)

Attitudinals: This category comprises the use of matrix predicates designating speakers
inclination and volition (I hope, We want, Im not willing,...), or intention (We resolved, I
plan, ...) regarding the realization of the event (cf. effective matrix predicates, Langacker
2007), as well as predicative adjectives (We are resolved to,...), relational constructions
involving nominals and sentence adverbs.

(14) I hope <[[EF]], SE> this will not require military action, but it may. (B-SP:115)
(15) We resolved <EF, IE> then, and we are resolved <[[EF]], IE> today, to confront every threat,
from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering... (B-SP:78)

269
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(16) Im not willing <[[EF]], SE> to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein. (B-
SP:128)

Expressions of volitive modality (modals will, wont), also included in this category, are
concerned with the expression of volition or intention of the speaker and/or participant
engaged in the event. These expressions often bear a commissive force when they involve
speaker cum participant combinations.

(17) Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will <[[EF]], IE> lead a
coalition to disarm him. (B-SP:109)

Intentions in Spanish are typically designated by the future tense or by verbal periphrasis ir a
(going to) + infinitive: seguiremos (we will go on). Other attitudinal expressions found in the
Spanish corpus include: deseamos (we wish), quiero (I want), es mi intencin (it is my
intention to), , etc.

(18) Necesitamos, pues, a nuestros amigos y a nuestros aliados y, en consecuencia, seguiremos


<[[EF]], IE> trabajando para reforzar la amistad y la solidaridad entre Europa y los Estados
Unidos,... (A-PS:89) (We thus need our friends and our allies and, therefore, we will go on
<[[EF]], IE> working to reinforce friendship and solidarity between Europe and the United
States, ...)
(19) Deseamos <[[EF]], IE> la coexistencia en paz, seguridad y libertad de dos Estados: Israel y una
Palestina independiente y democrtica. (A-PS:63) (We wish for <[[EF]], IE> peaceful
coexistence, security and freedom in the two states: Israel and an independent and democratic
Palestine.)
(20) Es mi intencin <[[EF]], SE> invitar al nuevo primer ministro palestino, Abu Mazen, a visitar
Espaa tan pronto como sea confirmado en sus funciones. (A-PS:64) (It is my intention <[[EF]],
SE> to invite the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Abu Mazen, to visit Spain as soon as he is
confirmed in office.)

Directives: The use of expressions in the Imperative mood with a conventional directive
force, or with a hortative value, are also found.

(21) Let me <[[EF]], SI> explain the nature of this threat as I see it. (BL-PS:132)
(22) And let us <EF, SI> recall: what was shocking about 11 September was not just the slaughter of
the innocent;...(BL-PS:134)
270
Juana I. Marn Arrese

This category also includes examples of performative uses of verbs of communication with a
directive illocutionary force (We are urging,...), or other expressions (We agree that, ...)
which also denote the effective stance of the speaker cum participant with regard to the
realization of the event. Similarly in Spanish we find expressions, such as solicito (I am
asking...), with a directive force.

(23) And that is why we are urging <[[EF]], IE> the 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]], SE> debatir con los grupos polticos sobre el
desarrollo de esta crisis en un perodo de un mes y medio. (A-PS:46) (This is the fourth time in
which I ask <[[EF]], SE> to debate with the political groups about the development of this crisis
in a period of a month and a half.)

4.2 Epistemic Stance


Expressions of epistemic stance include a variety of expressions which designate situations in
which the speaker as conceptualizer expresses knowledge about the event or some form of
estimation regarding its potential realization, as shown in Table 2.

EPISTEMIC STANCE (EP)


Epistemic modality: Epistemic must, will, would, may...
modals; Adverbs, predicative adjs. and I was certain..., It was likely...
nominals Certainly..., Perhaps..., Indeed ...
Truth-Factual validity: Personal and I am confident that ...
Impersonal predicates expressing The truth is.., The fact is...
factive or affective meanings; In my judgement...
Adverbs, predicative adjs. and Frankly...
nominals
Experiential evidentiality: Personal We have seen..., We have experienced...
predicates of perceptual or mental What is perfectly clear...
observation; Adverbs, predicative adjs. It is evident..., It was obvious...
and nominals Obviously..., Clearly..., Palpably...
Cognitive evidentiality: Personal I think..., I have come to the conclusion...
predicates of mental state; Adverbs, We all know..., We have learned...
predicative adjs. and nominals That means.., Presumably...
Comunicative evidentiality: Personal I say to you ..., I said...
predicates of communication and That suggests..., That implies...
verbal interaction

Table 2. Epistemic Stance markers

271
Juana I. Marn Arrese

Epistemic Modality: Expressions of epistemic modality concern speakers estimations of the


prospects for realization of the event designated. They encode different degrees of certainty
regarding the likelihood of its realization. Degrees of speaker certainty are typically
characterized as: high certainty or necessity (must, cannot, certainly, ...), medium certainty or
probability (will, would, should, probably, ...), and low certainty or possibility (may, could,
perhaps, ...) (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998, Palmer 2001, inter alia).

(25) ... talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must <[[EP]], SI> be
under the lash of Saddam. (BL-PS:80)
(26) And Saddam Hussein would <[[EP]], SI> be in a position to pass nuclear technology to
terrorists. (B-SP:29)
(27) An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may <[[EP]], SI> attempt cruel and desperate
measures. (B-SP:48)

Also included in this category are predicative adjectives in expressions which either explicitly
or implicitly invoke the subject of conceptualization, and sentence adverbs (I was certain, It
was likely, certainly, perhaps,...).

(28) And there is perhaps <[[EP]], SI> a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th
September. (BL-PS:67)

Verbal markers of epistemic modality in Spanish take the form of modal verb deber
(must/should) or poder (may/might)+ infinitive: debe ser... (it must be), puede ser ... (it may
be), pudiera ser... (it might be); tener que (have to) + infinitive: tiene que ser ... (it must be);
or modal + complement clause in the subjunctive mood: puede que sea...(it may be). They
also comprise modal periphrasis: haber de (have of), deber de (must of) + infinitive: ha de
ser...(it must be), debe de ser ... (it must/should be). Bybee et al. (1994) have pointed out that
epistemic necessity may derive from a future marker. In Spanish epistemic meaning may be
expressed by verbal inflection in the future tense (*r/rn) or by the conditional (*ra/ran);
epistemic qualifications are also associated with the future perfect marker (habr/n+PP). Non-
verbal markers include adverbs and adverbial expressions: sin duda (no doubt), ciertamente
(certainly/truly), desde luego (of course), 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) (Gmez
Torrego 1999; Ridruejo 1999). Examples found in the Spanish corpus include the subjunctive
272
Juana I. Marn Arrese

form of the modal verb, puedan (might), various verbs in the future and future perfect, harn
(will do), se producirn (will take place), and non-verbal markers, sin duda (no doubt), tal vez
(maybe), quiz (perhaps).

(29) ... donde la comunidad internacional trabaje por la seguridad mundial, afrontando y resolviendo
esta crisis y las que en el futuro se puedan <[[EP]], SI> presentar. (A-PS:38)(...where the
international community work for world security, facing and solving this crisis and those which
might <[[EP]], SI> take place in the future.)
(30) Tambin en los das venideros se producirn <[[EP]], SI> nuevas declaraciones. (A-PS:27) (In
the following days there will <[[EP]], SI> also be new declarations.)
(31) El Consejo de Seguridad, seoras, no ha fracasado, tal vez <[[EP]], SI> lo que haya fracasado
haya sido una poltica de contencin seguida durante doce aos que ha permitido... (A-PS:25)
(The Security Council, Right Honourable members, has not failed, perhaps <[[EP]], SI> what
has failed may have been a policy of contention followed for twelve years which has allowed ...)

Truth-Factual Validity: Personal and impersonal constructions designating judgements about


truth or likelihood are also found (The truth is, in my judgement...), as in the following
example.

(32) The truth is <[[EP]], SI> our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years
ago. (BL-PS:24)

Experiential evidentials: This category includes evidential markers that emphasize the
perceptual aspect of the acquisition of the information (cf. Fitneva 2001), indicating that the
speaker has direct personal sensory access to the evidence, or that the evidence is perceptually
available to her/himself and others, including the addressee/reader (We have seen, We have
witnessed, We have experienced,...).

(33) We have seen <[[EP]], IE> that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into
buildings full of innocent people. (B-SP:31)
(34) Weve experienced <[[EP]], IE> the horror of September the 11th. (B-SP:30)

Indirect perceptual markers may also emphasize the inferential process in the acquisition of
information on the basis of observable results; that is, the evidence is presented as a sign, or a
direct proof, for the claim (Sanders 1999: 478). Such expressions include: lexical verbs (It

273
Juana I. Marn Arrese

appears, That shows, That reveals,...), predicative adjectives (It became clear, It is
obvious,...), and sentence adverbs and adverbials (clearly, palpably,...).

(35) And surveillance photos reveal <[[EP]], IO> that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had
used to produce chemical and biological weapons. (B-SP:4)
(36) Clearly <[[EP]], IO>, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement
mechanisms will have to be very different. (B-SP:40)

Expressions in Spanish similarly include verbal and non-verbal markers of direct and indirect
access to the evidence. Verbal markers of experiential stance include: encontrar (find),
mostrar (show), parecer (seem), indicar (indicate), quedar patente (be patent), quedar claro
(be clear). Common non-verbal markers in Spanish include: al parecer (seemingly),
aparentemente (apparently), obviamente (obviously), claramente (clearly), evidentemente
(evidently), though none was found in our text.

(37) ..., fanticos que saben como dividirnos para que parezca <[[EP]], IO> adems que somos los
dems los que ponemos en peligro la convivencia. (A-PS:20) (..., fanatics who know how to
divide us so that it would seem <[[EP]], IO> moreover that it is the rest of us who are
endangering coexistence.)
(38) Ha quedado patente <[[EP]], IO> la negativa de Sadam Husein a efectuar el desarme al que
est obligado, ... (A-PS:10) (Sadam Huseins refusal to carry out the disarmament to which he is
obliged has become patent <[[EP]], IO>, ...)

Cognitive evidentials: This category pertains to the mental world of the speaker. It involves
the use of mental state predicates (I believe, I think, We know, I am convinced,...), non-verbal
markers (doubtless, without doubt), and relational and existential constructions involving
nominals (My guess was, There was no doubt in my mind, My belief,...).

(30) I believe <[[EP]], SE> we must hold firm. (BL-PS:3)

Indirect cognitive markers describe access to the information as a result of mental processes (I
have come to the conclusion, I gather,...). I have also included some predicates which refer to
inferential processes involving knowledge interpretation (That means,...).

274
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(40) I have come to the conclusion <[[EP]], SE> after much reluctance that the greater danger to
the UN is inaction: that to pass... (BL-PS:58)
(41) Approving this resolution does not mean <[[EP]], IO> that military action is imminent 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 found
in the text include impersonal constructions, es conocida (it is known).

(42) Adems creemos <[[EP]], IE> firmemente que Irak no debe volver a convertirse en refugio para
ningn tipo de terroristas. (A-PS:13) (In addition, we firmly believe <[[EP]], IE> that Irak
should never again become a refuge for any type of terrorists.)
(43) Conocemos <[[EP]], IE> la magnitud del dao que los terroristas ya han causado, conocemos la
capacidad devastadora que alcanzaran con armas de destruccin masiva. (A-PS:34) (We know
<[[EP]], IE> the magnitude of the harm the terrorists have already caused, we know the
devastating capacity that they would attain with weapons of mass destruction.)

Communicative evidentials: This category includes examples of self-reference to current or


previous acts of communication or self-attribution (I say to you, I said...), whereby the
speakers not only communicate their knowledge of the event but also validate the proposition
by appealing to their authority as public personae.

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

Also found are examples of reference to verbal agreement (We agree that ...), and indirect
evidential involving meaning-shifts from the domain of verbal communication to the domains
of knowledge and belief, including cognitive conclusional processes (i.e. CONCLUDING IS

IMPLYING) (That suggests, That implies, ...).

(45) ..., in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that 1441
implies <[[EP]], IO> action in such circumstances. (BL-PS:32)

In Spanish we find similar verbal expressions, afirmar (state), reiterar (repeat), estar de
acuerdo (agree), implicar (imply). Examples of self-attribution are also found in Spanish:
informar (inform).
275
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(46) Seora presidenta, creo no exagerar si afirmo <[[EP]], SE> que la que estamos viviendo en
estas semanas es la crisis internacional ms determinante desde... (A-PS:19) (Madam President,
I do not think I exaggerate if I state <[[EP]], SE> that what are going through these past weeks
is the greatest international crisis since ...)

4.3 Effective vs. Epistemic Stance: Results and Discussion


The use of expressions of effective stance evokes a form of potency or force which is inherent
in the social interaction between speaker and hearer3. This force is meant to be effective: it is
aimed at actually bringing about the occurrence of the onstage process designated by the
grounded verb (Langacker 2007: 14). The use of effective stance markers signal the
speakers position with regard to the necessity or desirability of the realization of events, and
are intended to have an effective persuasive effect. By contrast, the use of epistemic stance
markers, whose force is merely predictive with respect to the profiled process (Langacker
2007: 14), concerns the knowledge of events and the validity status of the information. In
rhetorical terms, these stance markers reflect the speakers concern with the acceptance of the
information as valid on the part of the hearer, and are an indication of the way in which they
use legitimisation strategies in order to manage their interests.

Table 3 shows the global results for effective (EF) and epistemic (EP) stance for the three
politicians. The results are given in raw numbers, and frequency per thousand words. The
distribution for effective and epistemic stance in the discourse of the three politicians is
significant4; there is association between politician and choice of stance mode.

Stance Bush Blair Aznar


3,374 words 4,874 words 3,811
N R N R

Effective (EF) 63 18.67 70 14.36 72 18.89

Epistemic (EP) 74 21.93 102 20.92 45 11.80

TOTAL 137 40.60 172 35.28 117 30.70

Table 3. Effective and Epistemic Stance Markers

276
Juana I. Marn Arrese

In general terms, we find a cline in the ratio of use of stance markers, with Bush at the higher
end. It has been observed that total commitment to truth is zero-marked in most languages,
reflecting the workings of our cultural models regarding knowledge, whereby information is
assumed to be true unless otherwise indicated (Matlock 1989; Bybee et al. 1994). In this case,
both Bush and Blair use the highest ratio of epistemic stance markers (R= 21.93 and R=
20.92), which would reflect a lesser degree of commitment to truth. In contrast, Aznar appears
to be the most committed speaker. These observed differences might be due to intercultural
differences. In the context of intercultural pragmatics, it has been suggested that there are
sociopragmatic differences in the way different cultures deal with the resolution of the
conflict between politeness and sincerity (Thomas 1983; Wierzbicka 1991). In this respect,
there is a tendency in Spanish to uphold truthfulness over politeness, which might have a
reflection in the lower use of epistemic stance markers in discourse. In a study on the use of
modality and evidentiality in newspaper discourse (editorials and news reports) in English and
Spanish (Marn Arrese 2006), it was found that the ratio (per thousand words) of use of
epistemic modal qualifications in English was 3.19, in contrast with Spanish, 1.59; and as
regards evidential qualifications, the figures were 3.10 for English, and 1.88 for Spanish.
However, further research is necessary in this respect.

Figure 1 illustrates the overall results for effective and epistemic stance in the discourse of
Bush, Blair and Aznar (ratio per thousand words).

45

40

35

30

25 Effective
Epistemic
20
TOTAL
15

10

0
Bush Blair Aznar

Figure 1. Stance markers in the discourse of Bush, Blair and Aznar.

The results for stance differ mainly in:

(i) Effective stance: The figures for Aznar are considerably higher in the effective
category in comparison to those of the category of epistemic stance. His discourse is
277
Juana I. Marn Arrese

markedly oriented towards the expression of intentions, necessity or desirability of the


realization of the designated event.
(ii) Epistemic stance: Blairs discourse is characterized by a higher use of markers of
epistemic stance. His discourse relies more on assessments relating to the knowledge of
events. The same may be said of Bush, though the difference between the two modes is
less marked in his case.

This observed variation seems to reflect differences in the interpersonal strategies of


argumentation between the speakers. The preferred mode of persuasion in the case of Blair is
based on the use of epistemic legitimising strategies. In the case of Bush there is almost a
balance between the use of both types of strategies. A balance between persuasion linked to
the occurrence of events, and persuasion linked to the validity of the communicated
information. Aznar, on the other hand, relies more on effective legitimising strategies.
Intercultural differences may also be observed in the preference for effective stance resources
as a strategy for persuasion in Spanish, as previous results indicate. In Marin Arrese (2007), it
was found that the figures for effective stance markers (attitudinal stance) in the discourse
(parliamentary statement and political speech) of Rodrguez Zapatero, the Spanish President
of Government, were considerably higher than those of Blair. In a previous contrastive study
of newspaper discourse (leading articles and opinion columns) in English and Spanish (Marn
Arrese et al. 2004), we found that the expression of writer stance in our corpus of English
relied mainly on markers of epistemic modality, whereas Spanish favoured the use of markers
of deontic modality. Further research in various argumentative genres and more data is
necessary in order to make any substantive claims regarding intercultural differences in the
use of legitimising strategies.

5. Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity in Discourses

5.1 Salience of Conceptualizer Role


Subjectivity has been characterized by Langacker (1991, 2000, 2002) in terms of the roles of
the conceptualizer and the conceptualization s/he entertains. The speaker, as ground element,
serves the role of subject of conception and source of the predication, but may also become an
object of conception as a participant within the predication. When explicitly mentioned, in
expressions with personal predicates (I have to say, I saw, I believe,...), the speaker is
278
Juana I. Marn Arrese

objectified since in addition to the role of conceptualizer, s/he is also part of the
conceptualization.

In the case of modals, the conceptualizer is implicit, so that his/her role is less prominent and
more subjectified. Nonetheless, as Sanders (1999: 473) notes, to the extent that the
conceptualizer functions as an implicit point of reference, the speakers active consciousness
is also evoked. One of the grammatical properties of grounding elements such as modals is
that an utterance with a modal does not readily accept an expansion to include the explicit
mention of the speaker or hearer (*For me, there could have been...). As Langacker (2002:
13) notes, a grounding element does not specifically mention the ground, despite evoking it
as a reference point. Impersonal modal predicates (it is possible, ...) are not considered
grounding elements as such, though they do invoke a conceptualizer, the actor whose
conception of reality is at stake. In the case of impersonal modal adverbs, the conceptualizer
evoked by the adverb is typically identified by default with the actual speaker (Langacker
2004).

With impersonal perceptual and cognitive evidentials (it seems, that means), where the
presence of the speaking subject is opaque; there is only covert reference to the ground, so
that the role of the conceptualizer is almost maximally subjective. Langacker (2000: 350)
notes that with an expression such as it seems, the conceptualizer may be only potential or
is construed generically or in a generalized fashion. In contrast with modals, impersonal
evidential expressions accept expansions which include the explicit mention of the
speaker/writer (It seems to me..., It sounds to me like ..., For me, that means that ..., It is clear
to me that ...). I would argue that in this case the speaker/writer is presenting the complement
proposition as part of the epistemic dominion of a virtual conceptualizer (Langacker 2004),
but one which is intersubjectively available. The speaker/writer, by identifying with this
intersubjective virtual conceptualizer, narrows down the mental activity to him/herself.

Drawing on these notions, a continuum may be identified in the dimension of subjectivity in


terms of the parameter degree of salience or overtness of the role of the conceptualizer, and
degree to which there is foregrounding of the speakers consciosness. The continuum ranges
from cases where the conceptualizer is onstage as part of the conceptualization and is thus
encoded as the explicit source of the evaluation, to those where the conceptualizer is implicit
and non-salient, and finally to those where the role of the current speaker as source of the

279
Juana I. Marn Arrese

evaluation is opaque since the expression evokes a virtual or generalized conceptualizer


(Marn Arrese 2007).

Explicit Implicit Opaque

I think... That may... It seems...

Figure 2. Salience of the role of conceptualizer

5.2 Subjective and Intersubjective Evidentiality


An additional dimension of subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity concerns the degree to which the
speaker assumes personal responsibility for the communicated proposition (subjective) or
presents the information as shared or potentially shared by others (intersubjective) (Nuyts
2001), as indicated in figure 3 (Marn Arrese 2007).

Personal Opaque Shared

I think... It seems... We know


That may ...

Figure 3. Personal vs. shared responsibility

Expressions designating the speaker explicitly (I think, I am sure, ...) indicate that the
speaker/writer personally subscribes to the assessment. Epistemic modals, which implicitly
invoke the subject of conception, would also indicate speakers personal responsibility. At the
other end of the continuum, those expressions that refer to a collectivity (We all know, We
saw, ...) explicitly index shared responsibility.

The middle ground is that of evidential expressions not designating the speaker explicitly,
which may be interpreted as invoking shared responsibility. As Sanders and Spooren (1996:
246) note, in the case of perceptual evidentials (it seems), the commitment to the validity of
the information is shared or at least potentially shared by the speaker/listener and other
participants (non-subjective or intersubjective responsibility). Cognitive and communicative
evidential expressions (That means, that suggests, ...), are similarly opaque in that they also
leave open the possibility of potentially sharing the evaluation with other participants.

280
Juana I. Marn Arrese

5.3 Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity
My proposal for the analysis of subjectivity/intersubjectivity considers the interaction of the
parameters salience or overtness of the role of the conceptualizer, which refers to the degree
of explicitness, implicitness or opaqueness of the presence of the conceptualizer and personal
vs. shared responsibility for the communicated information. A four-fold distinction is thus
proposed (Marn Arrese 2007, 2009):

Subjective, Explicit (SE): The speaker is the explicit point of reference, the sole subject of
the epistemic judgement or effective attitude. We find examples in the modal and evidential
domains of predicates with personal subjects which designate the speaker as subject of
conception (I saw, I think, I am convinced, I am aware, ...), and also other expressions which
include explicit mention of the speaker (For me, my judgement, ...).

(47) But Im convinced <EP, [[SE]]> that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want
peace --... (B-SP:184)
(48) We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me <EP, [[SE]]>, that means
all the dangers of war. (BL-PS:201)
(49) No se vive de palabras sino de realidades y creemos y creo <EP, [[SE]]> que slo afrontando
con responsabilidad nuestras convicciones nos hacemos ciertamente dignos de ellas. (A-PS:162)
(One does not live on words but on reality, and we believe and I believe <EP, [[SE]]> that only
by facing our convictions with responsibility can we be really worthy of them.)

Intersubjective, Explicit (IE): The speaker overtly presents the experience or evaluation as
intersubjectively shared with the audience or with other specific subjects (We have
experienced,...), or as universally shared (We all know,...). This includes the use of inclusive
we in reference to an incompletely defined collectivity that includes the speaker and one or
more others, without specifying who they are (Kitagawa and Lehrer 1990: 745), as in the
following examples.

(50) We know <EP, [[IE]]> that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents,
including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas,... (B-SP:144)
(51) Constatamos <EP, [[IE]]> que no se ha alcanzado un consenso en el Consejo de Seguridad
sobre una nueva resolucin. (A-PS: 118) (We have verified that <EP, [[IE]]> a consensus has
not been reached in the Security Council about a new resolution.)

281
Juana I. Marn Arrese

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

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

Subjective, Implicit (SI): The speaker is the sole conceptualizer, the implicit subject of the
epistemic judgement or effective attitude. In this category, we include expressions which
invoke the speaker/conceptualizer as the implicit point of reference. We find modal auxiliaries
(may, will, must, could, should,...) and modal adverbs (certainly, perhaps,...), as the following
examples show.

(53) The resolution will <EP, [[SI]]> tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks
with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.
(B-SP:255)
(54) And there is perhaps <EP, [[SI]]> a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th
September. (BL-PS:283)
(55) Tambin puede <EP, [[SI]]> haber otras situaciones de grave amenaza para la paz y seguridad
internacionales que exigen una respuesta,...(A-PS: 164) (There may <EP, [[SI]]> also be other
situations of dire threat to international peace and security which call for a response, ...)
(56) No hacerlo implicara dejarla para ms tarde, quiz <EP, [[SI]]> para demasiado tarde, y
aumentar, por lo tanto, los riesgos para la seguridad internacional. (A-PS: 166) (Not doing so
would imply leaving it for later, perhaps <EP, [[SI]]> until too late, and therefore increase the
risks for international security.)

Intersubjective, Opaque (IO): The role of the speaking subject is opaque; the expressions
invoke an implicit conceptualizer, which may be construed as virtual or generalized. The
speaker presents the information as potentially shared with the addressee and/or others, since
the qualification is based on evidence which is tacitly shared or potentially accessible to the
interlocutor or audience. A variety of linguistic resources are found in this category:
impersonal modal predicates (It is possible, It is likely,...), impersonal evidential predicates (It
seems, It is clear,...), predicates with discourse deictic that as subject (That shows, That
means, That implies,...), agentless passives (It was judged,...), and evidential adverbs
(Obviously, Palpably,...).

282
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(57) The attacks of September the 11th showed <EP, [[IO]]> our country that vast oceans no longer
protect us from danger. (B-SP:274)
(58) What is perfectly clear <EP, [[IO]]> is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same
old way. (BL-PS:327)
(59) ..., resulta esencial <EF, [[IO]]> reafirmar nuestro compromiso con el vnculo atlntico porque
as protegemos nuestra seguridad. (A-PS:232) (It is essential <EF, [[IO]]> to reaffirm our
compromise with the Atlantic link because that way we protect our security.)

5.4 Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity: Results and Discussion


The global results for subjectivity/intersubjectivity for the three politicians are shown in Table
4, in raw numbers and ratio per thousand words. The distribution for the expression of
subjectivity/intersubjectivity in the three politicians is significant5.

The figures for subjective, explicit markers (SE) are the lowest in the case of Bush and Aznar.
Blair has distinctively higher frequencies in this category, the majority of which are accounted
for by markers of epistemic stance which index explicit subjectivity (SE-EP) (I know, I think,
I believe, ...).

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 3.14


SE-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 6.03
IO-EF 4 1.18 6 1.23 13 3.41
IO-EP 9 2.67 16 3.28 10 2.62

TOTAL 137 40.60 172 35.28 117 30.70

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

283
Juana I. Marn Arrese

The three speakers make most frequent use of expressions of subjectivity which invoke the
speaker/conceptualizer implicitly (SI), and which contribute to diffuse their personal
responsibility for the communicated propositions. There is, however, a cline in the use of
expressions of implicit subjectivity, with Bush at the higher end and Aznar at the lower end.
There is also a difference regarding the correlation between implicit subjectivity and type of
stance marker: in the case of Aznar, there is a distinctive preference for implicitness in the
expression of effective stance (SI-EF) (i.e., must, have to, cannot,...).

As regards intersubjectivity, both Bush and Aznar exhibit a high frequency of expressions of
explicit intersubjectivity (IE), especially through the use of markers of collective
responsibility (we know, we are urging,...). This seems to involve a strategy aiming to present
the decision as shared by the American audience or by other members of the Spanish
Parliament.

With respect to intersubjective opaque (IO) markers, both Aznar, and to a lesser extent Blair,
show considerable ratios for this category. Aznar favours the correlation between opaque
markers and effective stance (EF-IO) (i.e., it is essential, it is urgent, it is impossible,...),
whereas Blair prefers opaque epistemic stance markers (That means, That shows, It is
clear,...). The use of markers of opaque intersubjectivity also contributes to present the
information as implicitly shared or potentially shared with the audience.

Figure 4 illustrates the differences in the discourse of the three politicians (ratio per thousand
words).

45

40

35

30
S-Explicit
25 I-Explicit
S-Implicit
20
I-Opaque
15 TOTAL
10

0
Bush Blair Aznar

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

These results reveal subtle variations in the use of strategies of mystification, implicitness and
the appeal to shared responsibility. Implicitness can be measured in terms of the cumulative

284
Juana I. Marn Arrese

effect of the use of subjective implicit (SI) markers and intersubjective opaque (IO) markers.
The percentages of the use of markers where the conceptualizer is implicit or where only a
virtual conceptualizer is evoked (Bush = 63%, Blair = 66.3%, Aznar = 61.5%) reveal that this
is the strategy favoured by the three politicians.

Appeal to shared responsibility can be measured by considering not only explicit


intersubjective markers (IE), but also intersubjective opaque (IO) markers. The percentages
for this strategy (Bush = 39.4%, Blair = 27.9, Aznar = 47.8%) differ, Aznar being the
politician who makes greater recourse to shared responsibility. The discourse of Tony Blair is
quite distinctive in this respect, his use of intersubjective markers is relatively low. In terms of
the comparison between subjective and intersubjective markers, Blair is the speaker who is
more subjectively present in his discourse if we take into account the percentage of explicit
(SE) and implicit (SI) subjective markers (Bush=60.6%, Blair= 72.1%, Aznar=52.1%).

The cumulative effect of the two strategies, implicitness and appeal to shared responsibility
clearly contributes to mystify the personal responsibility of Bush in his message to the
American people, and that of Blair and Aznar in the process of decision-taking both in the
English and Spanish Parliaments.

6. Conclusion

This paper presents a model for the characterization of the speaker/writers expression of
stance and subjectivity in discourse, which reveals and accounts for similarities and
differences in interpersonal styles, as well as across the various genres and discourses. The
analysis of speaker/writers stance draws on Langackers (2007, 2009) distinction between the
effective and the epistemic level in language. Epistemic stance pertains to the knowledge of
the speaker/writer regarding the realization of the event and/or to their estimations of the
validity of the proposition designating the event. Effective stance relates to the ways in which
the speaker/writer aims to exert control on the realization of the event, by expressing the
necessity of the event occurring, or their attitudes and assessments with regard to the event.
Subjectivity has been discussed in terms of the degree of salience attached to the role of
conceptualizer or the degree to which the conceptualizer is evoked but remains implicit

285
Juana I. Marn Arrese

(Langacker 1991, 2000, 2002). The dimension of intersubjectivity is closely linked to the
notions of personal vs. shared responsibility for the information (Nuyts 2001). In this paper I
have argued that both conceptions of subjectivity are complementary and that in order to
adequately characterize the notion of responsibility one needs to bear in mind the degree of
salience or overtness of the role of the conceptualizer.

The paper has presented a corpus study on the use of linguistic resources for the expression of
effective and epistemic stance in political discourse. Political discourse in English appears to
be characterized by the extensive use of markers of epistemic stance (We all know, We have
experienced...), whereas Spanish tends to favour the use of effective stance markers (i.e.,
must, cannot, It is essential...). There are, however, significant differences in the interpersonal
styles of George Bush and Anthony Blair. Whereas in the discourse of Bush there is a greater
balance between both stance domains, the discourse of Blair shows a clear preference for
epistemic stance. It has been argued that by the use of these stance resources speakers manage
their rhetorical goals of persuasion through the strategic functions of legitimisation and
coercion (Chilton and Schaffner 1997), that is, claiming true knowledge of the events and
claiming to be morally right in the proposed realization of events.

Stance resources are indices of speakers expression of subjectivity/intersubjectivity in


discourse. The use of expressions which are indexical of the speakers implicit subjectivity,
which invoke an implicit conceptualizer, are predominant in the discourse of the three
politicians. The main difference lies in the tendency for Aznar, and to a lesser extent Bush, to
invoke intersubjectively shared assessments. In this way, the speakers manage their
responsibility for their estimations regarding knowledge of events and for their proposed
realization of events, through strategies of mystification such as implicitness and the appeal to
shared responsibility.

Further research is necessary with respect to other dimensions of stance (degree of


speaker/writer commitment) in order to complete the characterization of these discourses.
There is also a need to expand the corpus, exploring other discourse domains (scientific
discourse, ...), genres (news reports, ...), and discourse modes (narrative discourse, ...) in order
to validate the model presented here. Finally, the contrastive perspective needs to be pursued
more extensively in order to explore the possible cultural variations in the different discourse
domains and genres (Marn Arrese 2007).

286
Juana I. Marn Arrese

Notes
1.
It must be borne in mind that the parliamentary statements and political speeches analyzed 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.
2
The labels used for the texts are the following:
B-SP: Bush, Political speech
BL-PS: Blair, Parliamentary statement
A-PS: Aznar, Parliamentary statement
3
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.
4
The Chi Square test using raw numbers gives the following results: Chi-square= 12.5, df: 2, p0.002. The
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, Df: 2, p0.000. There is very strong evidence in both
cases against the null hypothesis, since the observed values are not due to random variation.
5
There is strong evidence against the null hypothesis in both cases, on the basis of the calculation with raw
numbers (Chi-square=25.5, df:6, p0.000), and with normalized ratio frequencies (Chi-square= 63.1021,
Df: 6, p0.000). The 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.

287
Juana I. Marn Arrese

References

Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Benveniste, .(1966[1958]) De la subjectivit dans le langage. Problems de Linguistique Gnrale. Paris:
Gallimard. 258-266. (Orig. publ. in Journal de psychologie 55: 267f. 1958).
Bhatt, R. (2006). Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and E. Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. London: Longman.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: 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. 3-10.
Brown, R. and A. Gilman (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (ed.), Style in
Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 253-276.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and W. Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality
in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Chilton, P. And C. Schffner (1997). Discourse and politics. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social
Interaction. London: Sage. 206-230.
DuBois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In: R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 139-182.
Englebretson, R. (2007). Introduction. In: R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. pp. 1-26.
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 and S. Wright (eds.),
Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 1-15.
Fitneva, S. (2001). Epistemic marking and reliability judgements: Evidence from Bulgarian. Journal of
Pragmatics 33: 401-420.
Gmez Torrego, L. (1999). Los verbos auxiliares: Las perfrasis verbales de Infinitivo. In I. Bosque and
V. Demonte (eds.), Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. pp. 3323-
3390.
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action. London: Heinemann.
Hart, C. and D. Luke (eds.) (2007). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application
and Theory. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishin.
Kemmer, S. (1993). The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kitagawa, C. and A. Lehrer (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14:
739-759.
Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford:
Stanford 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: The Epistemic Footing

288
Juana I. Marn Arrese

of Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 1-28.


Langacker, R.W. (2004). Aspects of the grammar of finite clauses. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer (eds.),
Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: CSLI. pp. 535-577.
Langacker, R.W. (2006). Dimensions of defocusing. In T. Tsunoda and T. Kageyama (eds.), Voice and
Grammatical Relations. In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 115-
137.
Langacker, R.W. (2007). Control and the mind/body duality: Knowing vs. effecting. Paper presented at the
10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. University of Krakow, 15-20 July.
Langacker, R. W. (2009) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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 of agency in passive, impersonal and spontaneous situation types.
In J.I. Marn Arrese (ed.), Conceptualization of Events in Newspaper Discourse: Mystification of
Agency and Degree of Implication in News Reports. Madrid: Universidad Complutense. pp. 31-54.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2003). The middle domain in English and Spanish: Middle and related situation types.
In C. Molina, M. Blanco, J.I. Marn Arrese, A.L. Rodrguez and M. Romano (eds.), Cognitive
Linguistics in Spain at the Turn of the Century, Vol. 1: Grammar and Semantics. Madrid: AELCO
& Universidad Autnoma de Madrid. pp. 229-252.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2004). Evidential and epistemic qualifications in the discourse of fact and opinion: A
comparable corpus study. In J.I. Marn Arrese (ed.), Perspectives on Evidentiality and Modality.
Madrid: Editorial Complutense. pp. 153-184.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2006). Epistemic stance and commitment in the discourse of fact and opinion in
English and Spanish: A comparable corpus study. In A.M. Hornero, M.J. Luzn and S. Murillo
(eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Applications for the Study of English. Berlin: Peter Lang. pp. 141-157.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2007). Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse: A contrastive case
study. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures 5: 113-132.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2009). Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity/ intersubjectivity in political
discourse: A case study. In A. Tsangalidis and R. Facchinetti (eds.) Studies on English modality. In
honour of Frank R. Palmer. Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language and Communication, Vol. 111.
Berlin: Peter Lang. pp. 23-52.
Marn Arrese, J.I., Hidalgo, L. and S. Molina (2004). Evidential, epistemic and deontic modality in
English and Spanish: The expression of writer stance in newspaper discourse. In R. Facchinetti and
F. Palmer (eds.) English modality in perspective: Genre analysis and contrastive studies. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. pp. 121-139.
Martin, J.R.. and P.R. White (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Matlock, T. (1989). Metaphor and the grammaticalization of evidentials. In K. Hall, M. Meacham and R.
Shapiro (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. pp. 215-225
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 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plungian, V. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of
Pragmatics 33: 349-357.
Ridruejo, E. (1999). Modo y modalidad: El modo en las subordinadas sustantivas. In I. Bosque and V.
Demonte (eds.), Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. pp. 3209-
3252.
Sanders, J. (1999). Degree of subjectivity in epistemic modals and perspective representation. In L.

289
Juana I. Marn Arrese

Stadler and C. Eyrich (eds.), Issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 471-
489.
Sanders, J. and W. Spooren (1996). Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch
epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (3): 241-264.
de Smet, H. and J-C. Verstraete (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3):
365-392.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 91-112.
Traugott, E.C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein and S. Wright (eds.),
Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 31-54.
Traugott, E.C. and R. Dasher (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
van der Auwera, J. and V. Plungian (1998). Modalitys semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2 (1): 79-124.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.

290

You might also like