Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This contribution examines the distribution and communicative function of cognitive verbs in political discourse, giving particular attention to their impact on the expression of commitment. From a semantic viewpoint, cognitive verbs are seen as a means of subjectification expressing the speaker's attitude towards proposition and force whereas, from a discursive perspective, they are assigned the status of multifunctional devices expressing different types and different degrees of commitment. Part I analyzes the semantics and pragmatics of cognitive verbs, in particular those of think. Part II examines their particularized form and function in political discourse, accommodating both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. It shows that cognitive verbs tend to co-occur with other linguistic devices expressing commitment, thus illustrating their fine-grained interplay in the presentation of the political agent. The particularized use of cognitive verbs is assigned the status of a contextualization device, inviting the addressees to adopt the speaker's perspective and interpret a communicative contribution accordingly.

Keywords

strategic interaction cognitive verbs commitment intersubjectivity political interview political speech

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aijmer, K. (1997). I think - an English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. Jansen (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1-47). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Austin, J.L. (1980). How to do things with words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bar-Hillel, Y. (1998). Indexical expressions. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics: Critical concepts (pp. 23-40). London : Routledge.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English . Harlow, UK: Longman.

Brandom, R.B. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Celle, A., & Huart, R. (Eds.). (2007). Connectives as discourse landmarks. Amsterdam: Benjamins .

Chilton, P. , & Schäffner, C. (2002). Introduction: themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In P. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytical approaches to political discourse (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam : Benjamins.

10.

Collins Cobuild. (1990). Essential English dictionary. London: Collins.

11.

Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2002). Harlow, UK: Longman.

12.

Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., & Thibault, P. (Eds.). (2003). Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: Benjamins .

13.

Fetzer, A. (2000). Negotiating validity claims in political interviews . Text, 20, 1-46.

14.

Fetzer, A. (2002a). Communicative intentions in context. In A. Fetzer & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction (pp. 37-69). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

15.

Fetzer (2002b). " Put bluntly, you have something of a credibility problem": Sincerity and credibility in political interviews. In P. Schäffner & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 173-201). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

16.

Fetzer, A. (2006). "Minister, we will see how the public judges you." Media references in political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics , 38, 180-195.

17.

Fetzer, A. (2007). Non-acceptances in context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 493-520.

18.

Fetzer, A., & Lauerbach, G. (Eds.). (2007). Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

19.

Fetzer, A. (2008). Cognitive verbs in discourse: subjectivity meets intersubjectivity. In M. Thormalen & B. Warren (Eds.), English now: Papers from the 20th IAUPE conference (pp. 292-307). Lund: Lund Studies in English.

20.

Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction . Amsterdam: Benjamins.

21.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In M. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. III, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

22.

Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on "I think." Amsterdam: Benjamins.

23.

Lauerbach, G. , & Fetzer, A. (2007). Introduction. In A. Fetzer & G. Lauerbach (Eds.), Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3-30). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

24.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

25.

Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383-400.

26.

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In M. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. III, pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.

28.

Shinzato, R. (2004). Some observations concerning mental verbs and speech act verbs. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 861-882.

29.

Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2000). The functions of I think in political discourse . International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 41-63.

30.

Thompson, S. , & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 313-348). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

31.

Traugott, E. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp. 31-54). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

32.

Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

“And I Think That Is a Very Straightforward Way of Dealing With It”

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References