四 川 大 学

博\硕 士研究生课程考试试卷

姓 孙晨曦
名_____________________ 学 号_____________________
2022221040083

外国语学院
学院（所、中心）______________ 专 外国语⾔学及应⽤语⾔学
业_____________________

认知语⾔学
考试课程名称_____________________

考试方式 □笔试 □口试 □撰写论文 考试成绩_____________________

任课教师 曾国才 考试时间_____________________

2023年12⽉

四川大学研究生院制
A Study of English Particle Still: the Force-Dynamics Perspective

Abstract

Mirativity exemplifies itself by using specific means to mark certain information as

mirative/surprising. Research on Mirativity in recent years have yielded plentiful fruits. Yet, most
research has solely focused on its cross-linguistic comparison in linguistic forms or touched upon
the legitimacy of Mirativity as an independent grammatical category. Little research in sight has
probed into its cognitive explanation. This study takes as the research object the English mirative
particle “still”. Then, by virtue of the Force-Dynamics Perspective and Possible Worlds theory,
we analyze how the semantic primitive “surprise” come to being. The research findings are: 1)
Mirativity is achieved in the collision between two Possible Worlds (one being factual, the other
being counterfactual); 2) “Still” can express mirativity in both space and time; 3) Asymmetry in
force relations between two Possible Worlds is the direct cause of mirative meaning.

Key Words: Possible Worlds, Cognitive Linguistics, English Particles, Mirativity, Force-
Dynamics

1. Introduction

1.1 Previous Studies on Mirativity

The study of mirativity has gained increased attention in the field of linguistics,
particularly in the last few decades. The studies concerning mirativity centers on its Notions and
Terminology: The concept of mirativity has roots in linguistic anthropology and the study of
evidentiality (Aikhenvald, 2004; Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca, 1994; DeLancey, 1997; Evans,
2007; Givón, 1982; Jakobson, 1957; Johanson, 2000; Palmer, 2001; Peterson & Rose, 2016;
Plungian, 2001). It is in the pioneering works that researchers began to recognize instances
where speakers expressed surprise or unexpectedness in their discourse.
Early works mainly focused on mirativity within the broader context of evidentiality.
Some were epistemological ponderings upon the relationship between mirativity and
evidentiality (evidentiality as an umbrella term in which mirativity is covered for one, and
mirativity’s independence of evidentiality as a grammatical category for another). Scholars

1
explored how languages express surprise or the unexpected information: they often tried through
grammatical and lexical means. The interpretation of Cheyenne direct evidentials as mirative
elements is discussed by Peterson (2012) in the context of mirativity in a language without
evidentiality. The role of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space is discussed by
Plungian (2001), offering insights into the intricate relationship between mirativity and
evidentiality.
The research development on mirativity continues to evolve as scholars from various
linguistic subfields contribute to a deeper understanding of how languages convey surprise and
unexpectedness.

1.2 Previous studies on “still”

“Still” was first used as an adjective, describing the motionless and stationary state. In
terms of conceptual domain, this adjective is mostly used for spatial description. Later, “still” is
used for abstract time description, and finally expanded to metaphorical reference.
In modern English, “still” is a discourse marker of paramount importance. Quirk et al.
(1995) takes “still” as a contrastive conjunct; Lenk (1998) thinks of it as a retrospective
discourse marker, indicating the existence of a certain relationship between the two clauses cut
apart by the marker.
Diachronic research of “still” has demonstrated that it has undergone tremendous
semantic change. Zhang (2016) suggests that the meaning of “still” has gone from
“motionlessness” or “stationariness” in Old English (OE), to “quietness” or “silence” in 11th
century, and finally to a much more metaphorical domain.
The term Mirativity was first coined to refer to a state of mind that is in shock due to
external stimulus. DeLancy (1997, 2001) defined it as “conveying information which is new or
unexpected to the speaker.” And linguistic typological research has shown that there are
universal semantic values across languages (shown below).

(i) sudden discovery, sudden revelation or realization (a) by the speaker, (b)by the audience (or
addressee), or (c) by the main character;
(ii) surprise (a) of the speaker, (b) of the audience (or addressee), or (c) of the main character;
(iii) unprepared mind (a) of the speaker, (b) of the audience (or addressee), or (c) of the main character;

2
(iv) counter-expectation (a) to the speaker, (b) to the addressee, or (c) to the main character;
(v) information new (a) to the speaker, (b) to the addressee, or (c) to the main character.

Aikhenvald (2012) took Mirativity as an umbrella term in which Evidentiality is

subsumed. Moreover, yet in earlier work by DeLancy (2001), Mirative constructions are
considered only an “appendage” to Evidentiality. Therefore, the relation between Mirativity and
Evidentiality is hard to pin down and is much on debate. Given that this study is not a
epistemological endeavor but rather a cognitive revisit to the understanding of Mirativity, this
paper is aiming to describe the how the mirative meanings are generated by taking a closer look
at the syntax-semantics interface.
In modern/contemporary Chinese, Mirative meanings are expressed through distinctive
means. Hu (2018) stated that there are four ways for Chinese to express mirativity, and they are:
specific emotional overtones, commentary adverbs, discourse markers, and certain constructions.
Wan and Liu (2023) typologically examined 44 languages’ mirative markers and found that there
are four generally recognized types: 1) mirative affixes; 2) mirative words; 3) mixed miratives;
4) word order. Zeevat, H. (2009) postulates four particles in English that are deemed as mirative
markers in the following table.

even more than expected

only less than expected
already earlier than expected
still later than expected

The explanations for these four particles are merely a dictionary sketch of their mirative
meanings, that is, they failed to capture the intricate and minute differences in these particles’
mirative meanings and how these semantic primitives come about. In his explanation, “even”
and “only” are representing the speaker’s mirativity towards the quality or quantity of certain
object or event, whereas the latter two particles are used to describe the speaker’s mirativity
towards the time of occurrence of certain object or event. However, Zeevat’s generalization
seems to contradict with this paper’s findings. Thanks to prior scholars’ hard work, it is possible

3
for this paper to narrow down its research scope to the English particle “still” and to find out the
cognitive mechanisms underlying the mirative effect.

1.3 Force-Dynamics by Talmy

Force-dynamics is a cognitive semantic model that draws inspiration from the field of
Physics. In Talmy’s parsing of the cognitive structure of syntactic constructions, arguments play
either the role of agonist and antagonist and the force relations between the agonist and
antagonist are mapped onto the argument structure via linguistic means. Talmy has generalized
three types of forces, namely, physical, intra/inter-psychological and socio-psycological.

(1) An aircraft is flying in the sky.

(2) An aircraft flew through the turbulence.
(3) Luke kept himself from getting hurt.
(4) He is civil to him.
(5) She refused to leave the room.

The initial example (1) presents a fundamentally physical depiction of spatial dynamics.
The juxtaposition with its minimal pair (2) reveals a nuanced distinction wherein an Agonist (the
aircraft) contends with an Antagonist (air turbulence). Unlike the unencumbered flight in (1), the
presence of turbulence in (2) introduces a force impingement, exemplifying a Force-Dynamics
relation. This dynamic is rooted in the intrinsic force differentials between the Agonist and
Antagonist, whereby the aircraft's inherent strength prevails over the hindering turbulence,
facilitating its smooth navigation.
While instances (1) and (2) predominantly involve physical forces, a departure is
observed in the case of (3). Here, forces manifest in a predominantly psychological realm,
elucidating a conceptualization akin to 'Luke against the world.' The narrative unfolds as external
forces, the Antagonist, endeavor to inflict harm upon Luke, the Agonist. However, Luke's
resilience lies in his advantageous position, illustrating the capacity of the Agonist to thwart the
deleterious effects of external forces. Consequently, Luke remains immune to harm, accentuating
the nuanced interplay of psychological forces within the framework of Force-Dynamics
relations.

4
 In sentence (4), the Force-Dynamics relations are lexicalized through the adjective
"civil." To illustrate this distinction, consider the minimal pair sentence "He is polite to him" as a
counterexample. The term "polite" remains Force-Dynamic neutral, as its meaning denotes a
voluntary display of respect and consideration without necessitating the assignment of an
Agonist or Antagonist. Conversely, the adjective "civil" introduces an intriguing nuance, as it
encapsulates an individual's politeness towards others but with a diminished sense of
voluntariness. The action of displaying politeness and consideration, generally considered a
fundamental societal quality, becomes imperative in public opinion. In this context, the
overarching force of public opinion assumes the role of the Antagonist, compelling the subject
male (Agonist) to exhibit civility even when his inclination may not align with such behavior.
The dynamic interplay between the subject's inherent disposition and the external force of
societal expectations elucidates the nuanced Force-Dynamics inherent in the lexicalization of
"civil."
(5) is an extension of Force-Dynamics to social reference. We can easily infer from the
sentence that the subject was asked to leave earlier, interpretated by FDP as: the public is
exerting force upon the subject to make her leave while the subject’s strength of force is big
enough to overcome the force exerted.
In Talmy’s framework, he introduced four main forces underlying banal linguistic expressions:
physical, psychological, intrapsychological and sociopsychological. This paper’s hypothesis is
that the expected reality and the unexpected reality are two distinct intrapsychological forces in a
specific situation under certain circumstances. And the mirative effect is conveyed by way of the
interaction between the two forces, and later understood through the triumph of one force over
the other. To validify this hypothesis, this paper took the English particle “still” as the key word,
and extracted the sentences that contained the fore-mentioned particles, together with their co-
text into the analysis procedure.

5
 -
+ +
-
>
>

Figure 2 Figure 3

+ -
- +
>
>

Figure 4 Figure 5

1.4 Possible Worlds

The Possible Worlds Theory (PWT) has emerged as a pivotal conceptual framework
within the realm of philosophy and linguistics, providing a theoretical lens through which to
analyze modal concepts and the nature of possibility. Developed primarily by David Lewis in the
latter half of the 20th century, PWT posits that possible worlds are ontologically real and
concrete entities that exist independently of our own world. Lewis (1986) introduced the

6
foundational principles of PWT, proposing that possible worlds serve as alternative, coherent
representations of ways reality could be. He contends that these possible worlds are not mere
abstract constructs but exist as genuine entities with their own spatio-temporal and causal
structures. This ontological stance, often labeled Modal Realism, has generated significant
debate within philosophical circles regarding the nature of existence and the legitimacy of
positing countless alternative realities.
Possible Worlds Theory (PWT), initially formulated by David Lewis, has played a pivotal
role in linguistics, offering a nuanced framework for understanding modal expressions and
hypothetical scenarios within language.
Kratzer (1981) introduced a groundbreaking linguistic interpretation of PWT by
incorporating possible worlds into the study of modality. According to Kratzer, modals such as
"might" and "could" function by invoking alternative possible worlds where propositions hold
true. This approach allowed for a more precise analysis of how language conveys degrees of
possibility and necessity. Kratzer's work marked a significant departure from traditional
linguistic theories, providing a foundation for subsequent research on the semantics of modal
expressions.
In the realm of semantics, PWT has proven instrumental in exploring the meaning and
interpretation of modal verbs. Kratzer's (1991) formalization of modal semantics using possible
worlds provided a systematic framework for capturing the complexities of modal expressions.
Her work laid the groundwork for a more sophisticated understanding of linguistic modality,
distinguishing between epistemic and deontic modality and highlighting the role of possible
worlds in representing alternative realities.
Lascarides and Asher (1993) extended the application of PWT to the analysis of discourse
and dialogue. They proposed a dynamic interpretation of possible worlds within discourse
representation theory, allowing for the representation of evolving information and changing
perspectives in conversation. This dynamic approach offered new insights into the pragmatics of
modality, enriching our understanding of how modal expressions function in communicative
contexts.
More recently, van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) explored cross-linguistic variations
in the expression of modality, drawing on insights from PWT. Their comparative analysis
revealed that languages employ diverse strategies to convey modal meanings, and the

7
examination of possible worlds facilitated a more comprehensive understanding of these cross-
linguistic differences. This work highlighted the universal relevance of PWT in uncovering the
underlying mechanisms of modal expression across languages.
In addition to its role in analyzing modality, PWT has also influenced research on
counterfactual conditionals. Lepore and Ludwig (2005) applied possible worlds semantics to
investigate the structure and interpretation of counterfactuals. Their work demonstrated the
versatility of PWT in addressing not only epistemic and deontic modality but also counterfactual
reasoning, showcasing its broad utility in linguistic studies.
The world that we live in is but one possibility of many Possible Worlds. Other than the
way things are at the moment, there could be alternate ways things are in different worlds. We
postulate that in conceiving the world that we live in, we create two parallel worlds at the same
time, one being factual, the other being counterfactual. In the two Possible Worlds, different
force relations between entities appear.

Speaker/hearer’s mind
2 Possible Worlds

Counter-
Factual
factual
Reality
Reality

2. Method
This paper “mirativity” as its research topic, meanwhile centering around the discourse
marker “still”, to lay out a telescopic view of how mirative meaning comes into being by virtue
of the inter-action among different forces.
The study will adopt a corpus-based research design, utilizing a representative sample of
English texts to analyze the occurrences and functions of the particle "still" in various linguistic
contexts to ensure the diversity of sample.

8
 Extraction of instances and manual annotation in the selected corpus containing the
particle "still" will be first carried out. This procedure involves identifying syntactic structures,
semantic nuances, and contextual factors associated with the use of "still." Given the fact that the
occurrences of “still” is too big a set, this paper selected 1,000 sentences in total and randomly
extracted 100 sentences in different frequency and contexts to cover the usage of “still” in styles
of diverse genres. Then, the force-dynamics framework will be employed to categorize and
analyze the occurrences of "still." This involves identification of the agonist, antagonist, and
forces among them, and also the domain determination of the forces (e.g. in space or time),
providing a structured way to understand the dynamic forces at play in the current linguistic
context.
In the final step, this paper will present a modified Force-Dynamics model to help
crystalize the process that speakers/hearers has to go through with their own formulations of
Possible Worlds. Hopefully, this endeavor will contribute to shed light on the cognitive aspect of
mirativity that current studies paid unduly attention.

3. Discussion

3.1 Existing Cognitive Explanations for Mirativity

Let us commence our examination of the presented sentences through the lens of the pure
Force-Dynamics Perspective and other alternative frameworks, seeking to discern whether a
definitive explanation emerges regarding the genesis of mirativity.

(5) …the approach of Glenn ' s sports car – its alarm still blaring. # Jim a solemn man with experience as
a…
(6) When my husband died, my life stopped. I am still on hold. How long?
(7) …You could fit a few football fields in here and still have room left over. Workers at 32 cash registers
ring up.
(8) …me to it, I can bake a pie … and still get in a bike ride before supper. Now, go on …

In (5), “still” as an adverb is a particle that sets aside two alternate realities that are in
different degree of mirative effect to the addresser/addressee. In the context of this sentence, the
alarm is emitting sound for a period of time. Nevertheless, from the speaker’s stance, the alarm

9
has been in effect longer than his/her expectation. Previous studies have only explored mirativity
this far. But in this paper, the author’s view is that the two forces of two alternate realities, that is,
the sound’s continuation (factive force in line with reality) and the sound’s dying down (fictive
force as opposed to reality), are competing for the addresser’s/addressee’s attention. In this case,
the fictive force is the weaker antagonist.
However, the forces implied in (6) is bit different from (5) in that the forces in (5) are
physical (in line with reality) or intrapsychological (as opposed to reality) and forces in (6) are
also sociopsychological. The reason why the forces can be identified as such is that the speaker
represents herself as a force holding her back from moving on with her life after the death of her
husband and that there is also an invisible force from the public opinion which trying to propel
her to move on despite her loss.
In (5), there are agonist and antagonist representing the speaker’s divergent beliefs
towards the fictive reality and factual reality. The speaker’s belief in (5) is leaning towards the
fictive reality that the alarm is no longer making sound. However, there is also the antagonist that
is represented by factual reality that the alarm is still ticking. Besides the stance of the two
different beliefs, there is the degree of force that distinguishes the agonist and antagonist. The
force carried by fictive reality is much less than that fueled by factual reality, therefore, the
weaker agonist is overridden by the stronger antagonist. Put in another way, the conflict between
the agonist and antagonist is dissolved, whereby the mirative meaning comes into effect for the
addresser/addressee to discern.
But in (6), the situation is a bit more complicated in that the forces are no longer solely
from the inside of the addresser/addressee (intrapsychological forces). It incorporates forces that
is from the collective mind (sociopsychological forces). Generally speaking, the representation
of the agonist and antagonist here is different from (5). In (5), the agonist and antagonist are
represented by the “divided-self” (Tamly 2000) from the intrapsychological stance. But in (6),
there adds a force from the sociopsychological dimension. To be more lucid, the agonist herself
as a force refusing to move on with her life, is contending with the antagonist, public belief, that
the woman who had experienced the loss of her husband was moving on with her life. The
tendency of the agonist herself is towards rest while the tendency of the public belief is towards
action. But the agonist carries the force much stronger than what bears on the antagonist, in this

10
case, the final result of the conflict is that the agonist is towards rest, projecting to the factual
reality that the agonist is still hung up on the loss of her husband.
(7) is a canonical scenic description construed in mental space. The speaker is addressing
to the hearer about layout plan for a certain place. This expression is often used to convey the
vastness or spaciousness of a particular area. It suggests that the given space is so large that even
if you were to place multiple football fields within it, there would still be plenty of unused or
leftover space. It's a metaphorical way of emphasizing the sheer size or capacity of a place.
If analyzed through Conceptual Blending theory, the procedure involves initially
identifying the primary input spaces, namely the physical space being described and the concept
of a football field as a unit of measurement. These input spaces are then blended in a mental
space, resulting in a generic representation that exaggerates the size of the physical area.
Through size mapping and integration, the emergent structure emphasizes the immense
dimensions of the space, with the football field concept serving as a metaphorical tool for
measurement. The innovative meaning, highlighting vastness and surplus, is derived from this
mental blend, allowing the conceptual blending theory to elucidate the exaggerated and enriched
interpretation of the sentence. This process ensures coherence and depth in conveying the
message of an exceptionally large and spacious area with room to spare.
If viewed under a different light, we can analyze it in terms of agonist and antagonist
representing divergent beliefs towards fictive and factive reality: The speaker and hearer’s belief
(Agonist) leans towards the fictive reality that the space is not spacious enough to accommodate
such a big place (the football field), suggesting an expectation of less space to spare. The
antagonist is represented by the factive reality that the space is big enough to hold a football
field, as it runs counter to the belief held by the interlocuters.
However, the degree of the two forces is lopsided. For the agonist, the force carried by
the fictive reality (belief that the space is vast) is considerable but less forceful than the
antagonist's force. On the antagonist's side: The factive existence of spaciousness has a stronger
force due to the physical properties of the described place.
The conflict between the agonist and antagonist involves the tension between the
expectation of limited space and the spaciousness of the place. In this case, the weaker agonist
(belief in vast space) may be overridden by the stronger antagonist (fact of limited space).

11
 In summary, the sentence "You could fit a few football fields in here and still have room
left over" involves a conflict between the speaker's expectation of vast space and the
acknowledgment of potential limitations. The resolution of this conflict results in a mirative
meaning, inviting the reader or listener to discern the unexpected capacity of the space despite
initial expectations.
In (8), Conceptual Blending theory (CBT) can be applied to understand the dynamic
mental spaces at play. The primary input spaces are the activities of baking a pie and going for a
bike ride, each associated with distinct contexts and goals. The conceptual blending occurs in a
mental space where the act of baking a pie, typically perceived as time-consuming, is seamlessly
integrated with the idea of having sufficient time to engage in a leisurely bike ride. The emergent
structure suggests a harmonious combination of domestic activity and recreational pursuit,
creating an innovative meaning that transcends the potential conflict between domestic
responsibilities and personal enjoyment. The coherence arises from the successful integration of
these two seemingly disparate activities, allowing for a nuanced interpretation that implies
efficient time management and a balanced lifestyle.
The preceding two paragraphs analyzing (7) and (8) by taking the Conceptual Blending
theory perspective is faithful in capturing certain characteristics in the described objects and
events. They prefer to take advantage of the shared features of two entities to generate innovative
meaning beyond literal interpretation. Both sentences go beyond their literal interpretations,
offering innovative meanings. In the first sentence, the size of the space is exaggerated,
emphasizing its vastness. In the second sentence, the combination of baking a pie and taking a
bike ride challenges conventional notions of time constraints, suggesting efficient time
management and a harmonious blend of activities.
However, the most obvious two shortcomings of the CBT in the analysis procedure is that
its over-emphasis on structure instead of the nuances in semantic information (CBT primarily
focuses on the structural elements of the blend itself, like the input spaces, generic space, and the
blend. This can sometimes overlook the specific nuances of language and the subtle differences
in meaning of sentences. For example, both sentences use exaggeration, but the first one might
have a stronger element of humor compared to the second, which might be more focused on
conveying efficiency or time management.) and that its over-simplification on the cognitive
process underlying the mirative effect (CBT assumes a relatively straightforward process of

12
combining two mental spaces. However, the actual cognitive processes involved in
understanding language are likely to be more complex and involve factors beyond simple
blending, like cultural background, personal experiences, and the broader context of the
conversation.).
However, adopting the Force-Dynamics perspective offers a valuable insight. Notably,
Force-Dynamics excels in its emphasis on event structure and causality, allowing for a more in-
depth exploration of the intricate interactions between actions, agonists, antagonists, and forces.
This perspective provides additional insights into the semantic nuances arising from the
dimensions of space and time, as well as contextual factors. Furthermore, Force-Dynamics
proves instrumental in elucidating the underlying "forces" that drive metaphorical comparisons.
For instance, in the statement "You could fit a few football fields in here," the "force" is
attributed to the immensity of the space, leading to its comparison with the other possible world
(counterfactual) in which the space is much more limited.
Therefore, this utterance is meant by the speaker to evoke in the addressee a sense of
surprise. One of our findings is that that the English particle “still” can be used as a mirative
marker that renders the mirative effect to the addresser/addressee. But the cognitive process
through which the addresser/addressee must go is much more faithfully captured by taking the
Force-Dynamic perspective. Mirative effect in the two cases above is the direct result of the
resolution between the agonist and antagonist.

3.2 Modified Force-Dynamics’ Account for Mirativity

While Force-Dynamics theory and Conceptual Blending theory provide valuable insights
into spatial relations and motion events, it still presents certain drawbacks when applied to the
study of mirativity:

a. Limited Scope: Force-Dynamics primarily focuses on physical forces and spatial relationships,
making it less equipped to capture the nuanced and diverse expressions of mirativity,
which often involve subjective and emotive elements.
b. Lack of Temporal Domain: Mirativity often involves a temporal aspect, with events unfolding
unexpectedly. Force-Dynamics theory, rooted in spatial relations, may struggle to capture
the temporal dynamics crucial in mirative constructions.

13
c. Insufficient Focus on Discourse Context: Mirativity is sensitive to the discourse context and
the speaker's intention. Force-Dynamics theory may not adequately consider these
pragmatic factors, limiting its explanatory scope in mirative utterances.

These forementioned deficiencies of FD and CBT are self-evident as we analyze the sentences in
the process. Therefore, it is needed that we present a modified account of mirativity by melting
together the FD and Possible Worlds theory. How it is done is as follows:

(9) Even though they are apart for longer periods, they are still a couple and not lapse back into their
solo routines.
(10) …be disappointed that their past efforts have left the economy still struggling to find its feet. The
economy grew a feeble 1.5%.
(11) … terms with the idea that this might happen. The thought still made my throat prolapse a little, but
all my pieces remained…

In factive reality In counterfactual reality

+ - - +
> >

Figure 9 Figure 9’

- + + -
> >

Figure 10 Figure 10’

14
 - + + -
> >

Figure 11 Figure 11’

For the above sentence, “still” serves as a marker of a state's continuation of a temporal
reference point, one of the three inter-related synchronic senses (König 1977). Therefore, the
interpretation of the sentence should be that the couple’s relationship passed the point of break-
up due to the intrinsic force/desire of the couple’s lasting intimacy.
Periods of time of not being together and the couple stand respectively as the antagonist
and agonist. However, the force relations between the Agonist and Antagonist are out of balance.
In counter-factual reality (a certain possible world), among many possibilities, the
propositional content of the second clause should be that they are no longer a couple and off to
their own separate lives due to long periods of staying apart. Yet, in factual reality, the situation
is quite the opposite.
Back to the main point of the study, the reason why mirativity is generated is no longer a
mystery by taking the FDD. That is, speakers/hearers do form two kinds of Possible Worlds,
sharply in contrast in most cases. The inconsistency of the two worlds is attributed to the fact that
the properties and nature of objects and events are quite different in these two Possible Worlds.
Instead of going great length about the Formal Semantics, I will take the FD as an explanatory
tool. Despite the ever-changing circumstances and conditions in the sentential proposition, the
referents and intrinsic tendencies of Agonist and Antagonist stayed the same. Change only
springs up in the degree of force borne by the Agonist and Antagonist respectively.
(9) is a canonical instance of “still” illustrating mirativity in the temporal domain. The
mirative effect is evoked by the collision of two Possible Worlds, in which asymmetry is shown
in the lopsided degree force borne by Agonist and Antagonist.
(10) serves as more delicate example of “still” representing two Possible Worlds. (10) is a
typical alternation from the basic FD pattern in that there is shift in balance of strength present in

15
the argument structure. According to Talmy (2000), A distinct form may be delineated at this
juncture. The dynamic interaction between the Antagonist and Agonist persists, characterized by
mutual impingement. However, the equilibrium of forces within this interaction can undergo
modification, manifesting through the attenuation or augmentation of one of the entities. As
illustrated above in the figures, the Agonist and Antagonist stayed the same while change took
place in the balance of strength between the two entities.
Nevertheless, mirativity brought about by “still” in the spatial domain is by no means
non-existent. For example, in (11), the Agonist is represented by the throat while Antagonist is
represented by the thought. With the purpose of not complicating the analysis, we will view that
the described person literally made the action of jaw-dropping. The comparison highlights that
the situation is quite similar with that of (9) in temporal domain.
The integration of Possible Worlds theory with Force-Dynamics theory by Talmy can
offer a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for analyzing the genesis of mirativity
specified in the cognitive process. Possible Worlds theory, particularly when applied to semantics
and pragmatics, allows for a richer exploration of the mental representations and contextual
variations that contribute to the expression of mirativity. Possible Worlds theory provides a
natural framework for exploring counterfactual scenarios, which are often integral to expressions
of mirativity. By considering alternative possible worlds where unexpected events did not occur,
or alternative outcomes were anticipated, we can gain insights into the cognitive processes
underlying mirative expressions. Possible Worlds theory inherently considers temporal
dynamics, addressing how possible worlds unfold over time. This temporal aspect is crucial in
mirativity, where the unexpected nature of events unfolds sequentially. Integrating Possible
Worlds theory allows for a more holistic examination of the temporal dimensions of mirative
constructions.
Possible Worlds theory can aid in incorporating the pragmatic context within which
mirativity occurs. It helps analyze how different possible worlds are invoked in communication,
considering the speaker's intentions, the interlocutors' perspectives, and the broader discourse
context, which are aspects not fully addressed by Force-Dynamics theory alone.
In summary, integrating Possible Worlds theory with Force-Dynamics theory enhances
the analysis of mirativity by providing a more flexible and inclusive framework. This synthesis
enables researchers to delve into the cognitive, counterfactual, and pragmatic dimensions of

16
mirativity, offering a more comprehensive understanding of how unexpected events are
linguistically and cognitively processed.

Limitations

Corpus linguistic studies, while powerful in providing empirical insights into language
use, have certain limitations.
The first drawback of this study has to do with the representativeness of the selected
corpus: 1) Diachronically speaking, this paper is inherently a cross-sectional study instead of a
longitudinal one, therefore inevitably neglecting the ever-changing forms and functions of “still”.
2) Because of the limited human resources, this study had no choice but to cut down the size of
the corpus. The final small corpora may lack the statistical power to draw robust conclusions,
while large corpora may be challenging to manage and analyze comprehensively. Consequently,
there might be sampling biases which may lead to skewed results that may not accurately reflect
the language as a whole.
The second deficiency of the selected corpus is that it sometimes lacks contextual
information, making it hard to interpret the actual meaning prevented by ambiguity. Therefore,
some Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic aspects may be overlooked.

Conclusion

Besides the basic steady-state force-dynamic pattern, there are also alternate patterns that
govern the argument structures. And the mirative effect is given birth by the entrance,
sustainment, and the exit of forces of different degree.
In linguistic discourse, mirativity frequently entails the articulation of astonishment or
skepticism by a speaker concerning a given occurrence. The manifestation of this sense of
surprise is facilitated through the selection of specific linguistic components, including markers
and intonation patterns. The utilization of a force-dynamics diagram together with Possible
Worlds theory proves instrumental in elucidating the conceptual dynamics that underscore the
manifestation of mirative effects within the realm of language.

17
Rerefences

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

DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information.
Linguistic Typology, 1(1), 33-52.
DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369-382.
Givón, T. (1982). Evidentiality and Epistemic Space. Studies in Language, 6(1), 23-49.
Johanson, L. (2000). Turkic indirectives and miratives in a cross-linguistic perspective. In A. Y.
Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in Evidentiality (pp. 273-292). John Benjamins.
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.),
*Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics* (pp. 38-74). de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein
internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 639-650). Walter de Gruyter.
Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and
commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(5), 437-493.
Lazard, G. (1999). Evidentiality: A historical and typological overview. In H. Andersen (Ed.),
Historical Linguistics 1997: Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference on
Historical Linguistics (pp. 109-124). John Benjamins.
Lenk U. Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation[J]. Journal of Pragmatics，

1998，30( 2) : 245-257.
Lepore, E., & Ludwig, K. (2005). Donald Davidson: Meaning, truth, language, and reality.
Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D. (1986). *On the Plurality of Worlds*. Blackwell.
Peterson, T. (2012). Mirativity in a language without Evidentiality: On the interpretation of
Cheyenne direct evidentials. International Journal of American Linguistics, 78(4), 521-552.
Peterson, T., & Rose, S. (2016). Mirativity in English and Danish: A corpus-based contrastive
study. Linguistics, 54(5), 1043-1074.
Plungian, V. A. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space.
Linguistic Typology, 5(3), 365-392.
Quirk R，Greenbaum S，Leech G，et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English

Language[M]. Harlow，Essex: Longman，1995.

18
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (Vol. 1). MIT
press.
Van der Auwera, J., & Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2(1),
79-124.
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in
Language, 12(1), 51-97.
万光荣 & 刘欣婷.(2023).跨语⾔视⻆下意外表达式的类别与共性特征.中国外语(06),40-
49.doi:10.13564/j.cnki.issn.1672-9382.2023.06.013.
张宏国.(2016).对⽐性话语标记 still 的语义演变与主观化.浙江外国语学院学报(05),5-13.

胡承佼.(2018).意外范畴与现代汉语意外范畴的实现形式.华⽂教学与研究(01),58-
69.doi:10.16131/j.cnki.cn44-1669/g4.2018.01.007.

19