Article published In:
The Functions of EvidentialityEdited by Eric Mélac and Pascale Leclercq
[Functions of Language 31:1] 2024
► pp. 16–33
Edited by Eric Mélac and Pascale Leclercq
[Functions of Language 31:1] 2024
► pp. 16–33
On the co-optation of according to as an evidential in English
The use of according to + NP has rarely been the topic of any specialized research in relation to
English evidentiality, although it would probably figure among the most frequent types of reportative evidentials found in written
texts. One of the problems often associated with reportatives has related to the existence of the Reportative Exception (see, e.g.
AnderBois 2014), referring to the fact that the speaker may not always subjectively
endorse the proposition conveyed with the support of the evidential phrase. The present study reviews the history of
according to + NP from Middle English onwards, after which it began to develop evidential functions, and
shows how the tendency to reject the truth of the content of the proposition marked by according to + NP arose in
specific contexts containing alternative information sources, comparison, or adversative clauses. It was shortly after the
diachronic appearance of according to + NP in such contexts that the more periphrastic form, in
accordance with + NP, began to renovate/renew the earlier, non-evidential meanings of according to +
NP. The present study also attributes the development of according to + NP to a process of co-optation (e.g.
Heine 2013) rather than grammaticalization.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The expression of evidentiality in English
- 2.1Previous research on according to
- 3.Co-optation of evidentials
- 4.A diachronic corpus study
- 4.1Categorization of the data
- 5.Results
- 5.1Middle English
- 5.1.1Progressives and non-restrictive adverbial adjuncts
- 5.1.2Restrictive manner adverbials
- 5.2Early Modern English
- 5.2.1Evidential 1: Qualification of an opinion, prediction, judgement or hypothesis
- 5.2.2Evidential 2: Qualification of reports or hearsay
- 5.3Late Modern English
- 5.1Middle English
- 6.Analysis
- 6.1Rejection of the information source
- 7.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
Corpora and tools -
References
References (26)
AntConc: Anthony, Laurence. 2020. AntConc
(Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. [URL]
CEMET: The Corpus of Early Modern English
Texts. Compiled by Hendrik De Smet, University of Leuven.
CLMET(EV): The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Extended
Version). Compiled by Hendrik de Smet, University of Leuven. [URL]
Helsinki Corpus: The Helsinki Corpus of English
Texts. 1991. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project
leader), Merja Kytö (Project
secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old
English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle
English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early
Modern English). Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.
OED: Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd
edn., online version. [URL]. Accessed between 30/09/2019 and 22/02/2021.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 
AnderBois, Scott. 2014. On
the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. Proceedings of
SALT 241. 234–254.
Blakemore, Diane. 2006. Divisions
of labour: The analysis of
parentheticals. Lingua 1161. 1670–1687.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1990. According
to. Journal of English
Linguistics 23(1–2). 225–238.
Boye, Kasper. 2010. Evidence
for what? Evidentiality and
scope. STUF 63(4). 290–307.
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality
in English conversation and academic writing. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality:
The linguistic coding of
epistemology, 261–272. Norwood, NJ.: Ablex.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and
conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Speech
acts, 113–128. New York: Academic Press.
Guardamagna, Caterina. 2017. Reportative
evidentiality, attribution and epistemic modality: A corpus-based diachronic study of Latin secundum NP
(‘according to NP’). Language
Sciences 591. 159–179.
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On
the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New
reflections on
grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2013. On
discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something
else? Linguistics 51(6). 1205–1247.
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck & Tania Kuteva. 2017. Cooptation
as a discourse
strategy. Linguistics 55(4). 813–855.
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2021. The
rise of discourse
markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Kaltenböck, Gunter, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On
thetical grammar. Studies in
Language 35(4). 848–893.
Kaltenböck, Gunther, María José López-Couso & Belén Méndez-Naya. 2020. The
dynamics of stance constructions. Language
Sciences 821. 1–12.
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On
the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of
Pragmatics 331. 359–367.
Lewis, Diana. 2021. Pragmatic
markers at the periphery and discourse prominence. The case of English of
course
. In Daniël van Olmen & Jolanta Sinkuniene (eds.), Pragmatic
markers and
peripheries, 351–381. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, James R. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal
systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation
in text: Authorial stance and the construction of
discourse, 142–175. Oxford: OUP.
Mélac, Eric. 2014. L’evidentialité
en anglais. Approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus anglais-
tibetain. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 PhD thesis.
. 2022. The
grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language and
Linguistics 26(2). 331–359.
Rissanen, Matti. 2000. Paths
of loan-word grammaticalisation: the case of according
to
. In Christine Dalton-Puffer & Nicholas Ritt (eds), Words:
Structure, meaning, function. A festschrift for Dieter
Kastovsky, 249–262. Berlin: Mouton.
Whitt, Richard J. 2011. (Inter)subjectivity and
evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of
Pragmatics 431. 347–360.