Cover not available
Part of
Grammatical Change in English World-Wide
Edited by Peter Collins
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 67] 2015
► pp. 205–220

The evolution of epistemic marking in West Australian English

| The University of Western Australia
Across English varieties, frequent subject + epistemic/evidential verb constructions have been reanalysed as formulaic stance markers capable of introducing an embedded clause in the absence of that. I think has grammaticalised further and can occur in a syntactically parenthetical location in an utterance as an ‘epistemic parenthetical’. This chapter explores the emergence of grammatical constraints on think usage in a collection of State Library of Western Australia oral histories. The corpus features 39 speakers of Anglo-Celtic Australian English born between 1874 and 1983. Findings indicate that it is not until the late 20th century that parenthetical I think emerges as a grammatically entrenched variable with pragmatic functions involving the expression of opinion and the mitigation of negative judgement. Keywords: epistemic; evidential; think; Australian English; parenthetical
Published online: 24 February 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.67.09rod
References
Aijmer, Karin
1997  I think – an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Toril Swan &Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds), 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter
2007 Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3): 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Tomasello, Michael
2001 The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 97–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt
1993 Pragmaticalization: The case of ba and you know [Studier I Modern Språkvetenskap, New series 10, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 76–93.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
2007 Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory
1988 Advanced Varbrul analysis. In Linguistic Change and Contact, Kathleen Ferrara, Becky Brown, Keith Walters & John Baugh (eds), 124–136. Austin TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael
2004 The pragmatics of polarity. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Lawrence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 701–723. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther
2013 Development of comment clauses. In The English Verb Phrase: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora, Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech & Sean Wallis (eds), 286–317. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
2003 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Interactional Functions, with a Focus on think [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 115]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed.), 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. In New Approaches to Hedging, Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Stefan Schneider (eds), 207–241. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kearns, Kate
2007 Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 475–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
2007 Transmission and diffusion. Language 83(2): 344–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mullan, Kerry
2010 Expressing Opinions in French and Australian English Discourse. A Semantic and Interactional Analysis [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 200]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palander-Collins, Mina
1999a Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
1999b Male and female styles in 17th century correspondence: I THINK. Language Variation and Change 11: 123–141.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali
2001 African American English in the Diaspora. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, Celeste
2013 Quotatives Down Under: Be like in cross-generational Australian English speech. English World-Wide 34(1): 48–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, Celeste & Harris, Thomas
2013 Evolution with an attitude: The grammaticalisation of epistemic/evidential verbs in Australian English. English Language and Linguistics 17(3): 415–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, Celeste & Ritz, Marie-Eve
2014 Stories down under: Tense variation at the heart of Australian English narratives. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 540–556.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali
2002 Comparative sociolinguistics. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), 729–763. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006 Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Smith, Jennifer
2005 No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9: 289–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra
2002 “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra & Mulac, Anthony
1991a The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15(3): 237–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991b A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers, [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James
2009 On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas. Linguistics 47: 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1): 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, Deiter Stein & Wright, Susan (eds), 31–54. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie
2006  I guess, I suppose and I believe as pragmatic markers: Grammaticalization and functions. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures 4: 129–149.Google Scholar
2010 A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics 14(3): 399–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Herk, Gerard
2012 What is Sociolinguistics? Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
2006 English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Collins, Peter & Xinyue Yao
2019. AusBrown: A new diachronic corpus of Australian English. ICAME Journal 43:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.