Toward a typology of constative speech acts: Actions beyond evidentiality, epistemic modality, and factuality

Vittorio Tantucci 1
  • 1 Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Vittorio Tantucci
  • Corresponding author
  • Email
  • Further information
  • Vittorio Tantucci is Lecturer in Chinese and Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics and English Language of Lancaster University. His main publications focus on intersections between pragmatics, human cognition and various functions of epistemicity. These issues are typologically addressed both from a synchronic and diachronic perspective.
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar


The present study joins the long-running debate about the semantic–pragmatic distinction of the three domains of epistemic modality, evidentiality, and factuality. In particular, this work aims at providing both a theoretical and operational framework to investigate what type of speech act is at stake when a speaker/writer alternatively decides to mark a proposition as an epistemic modal, an evidential, or a factual construction. In fact, three basic types of illocutionary force will be shown to determine the modal marking of a constative speech act: evaluational (EvF(p)), presentative (PrF(p)), and assertive (AsF(p)) force. This classification is based on a set of tests that can effectively address either grammaticalized constructions or pragmatic strategies, independent from the specificity of the item under enquiry. This approach is first used to disentangle the controversial meaning of MUST-type predicates and then further theorized as a speech-act based framework of epistemic disambiguation.

  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Anderson, Lloyd. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  • Aronson, Howard. 1967. The grammatical category of the indicative in the contemporary Bulgarian literary language. In To honor Roman Jakobson, 82–98. Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.

  • Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Auwera, Johan van der & Andreas Ammann. 2005. Overlap between situational and epistemic modal marking. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), World atlas of language structures, 310–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Auwera, Johan van der & Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2(1). 79–124.

  • Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3). 209–226.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Benveniste, Émile. 1974 [1970]. L’appareil formel de l’énonciation. Problèmes de linguistique générale, 2. 79–88. Paris: Gallimard.

  • Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  • Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2010. Korean evidentials and assertion. Lingua 120. 932–952.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Chung, Sandra & Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Cornillie, Bert. 2007. Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-) auxiliaries: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language 16(1). 44–62.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra Thompson. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast, 381–410. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Croddy, W. Stephen. 2002. Performing illocutionary speech acts: An analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 1113–1118.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1). 33–52.

  • DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 369–382.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Dietrich, Rainer. 1992. Modalität im Deutschen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

  • Diewald, Gabriele. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Niemeyer: Tübingen.

  • Diewald, Gabriele. 2000. A basic semantic template for lexical and grammaticalized uses of the German modals. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14(1). 23–41.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova (eds.). 2010. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.

  • Friedman, Victor. 2003. Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Goossens, Louis. 2001. Patterns of meaning extension, “parallel chaining,” subjectification, and modal shifts. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, 149–169. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Guentchéva, Zlatka. 1996. Le médiatif en bulgare. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée, 47–70. Louvain: Peeters.

  • Guentchéva, Zlatka & Jon Londaburu (eds.). 2007. L’énonciation médiatisée, vol. 2. Louvain: Peeters.

  • de Haan, Ferdinand. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18(1). 83–101.

  • de Haan, Ferdinand. 2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte 9. 201–216.

  • de Haan, Ferdinand de. 2009. On the status of “epistemic” must. In R. Facchinetti & A. Tsangalidis (eds.), Studies on English modality, 261–284. Bern: Peter Lang.

  • de Haan, Ferdinand. 2010. Building a semantic map: Top-down versus bottom-up approaches. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 102–117.

  • Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2014. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.

  • Hoffmann, Sebastian, Stefan Evert, Nicholas Smith, David Lee & Ylva Berglund-Prytz. 2008. Corpus linguistics with BNCweb: A practical guide. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

  • Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Im, Hong-Bin. 1982. Senemal -te-wa tanceluy yangsang [The pre-final -te and the modality of severance]. Kwanak Emwun Yenkwu 7. 433–475.

  • Jary, Mark. 2010. Assertion. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Johanson, Lars. 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 273–291. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas. 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Kim, Young Hee. 1981. Hoysangmwunuy inchingceyakkwa chaykimseng [Person constraint on the retrospective sentences and responsibility]. Hankwuhak [Korean Studies] 10. 37–80.

  • Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1971. Fact. In Manfred Bierwisch & Karl E. Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 143–173. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Kissine, Mikhail. 2013. From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kronning, Hans. 2003. Modalité et évidentialité. In Merete Birkelund, Gerhard Boysen & Poul Søren Kjærsgaard (eds.), Aspects de la modalité, 131–151. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

  • Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3(1). 91–109.

  • Lazard, Gilbert. 2000. Le médiatif: considérations th oriques et application à l’iranien. In Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages, 209–228. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 359–367.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation. Basingstoke, UK & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mortelmans, Tanja. 2000. On the “evidential” nature of the “epistemic” use of the German modals müssen and sollen. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14(1). 131–148.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Mortelmans, Tanja. 2012. Epistemic must and its cognates in German and Dutch: The subtle differences. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15). 2150–2164.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Narrog, Heiko. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27(2). 165–192.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Narrog, Heiko. 2010. Evidentiality in epistemic modality – let’s get the whole picture: Comment on “Building a semantic map: Top-down vs. bottom- up approaches” by Ferdinand de Haan. Linguistic Discovery 8. 118–122.

  • Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Beyond intersubjectification: Textual usages of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech orientation. English Text Construction 5(1). 29–52.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Nuyts, Jan. 2009. The “one-commitment-per-clause” principle and the cognitive status of qualificational categories. Linguistics 47(1). 141–171.

  • Nuyts, Jan. 2012. Notions of (inter) subjectivity. English Text Construction 5(1). 53–76.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier.

  • Pedersen, Ted. 1996. Fishing for exactness. In Proceedings of the South Central SAS User’s Group (SCSUG-96) Conference, 188–200. South Central SAS User’s Group 96, Austin, TX, 27–29 October.

  • Pietrandrea, Paola. 2005. Epistemic modality: Functional properties and the Italian system. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 347–357.

  • Ramat, Paolo. 1996. Allegedly, John is ill again: Stratégies pour le médiatif. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), L’énonciation mediatisée, 287–298. Louvain & Paris: Peeters.

  • Reich, Wendelin. 2011. The cooperative nature of communicative acts. Journal of Pragmatics 43(5). 1349–1365.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Reich, Wendelin. 2012. In defense of the evolutionary approach to human communication: Reply to Huang and Wu. Journal of Pragmatics 44(1). 123–125.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Salkie, Raphael. 2002. Probability and necessity in English and German. In Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 81–95. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.

  • Sbisà, Marina. 2014. Evidentiality and illocution. Intercultural Pragmatics 11. 463–483.

  • Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Searle, John R. & Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Shin, Hyun Sook. 1980. -Tela-uy ssuimkwa uymi [The meaning and use of -tela]. Kunkwuk University: Kunkwuk University Nonmwuncip.

  • Slobin, Dan & Koç Ayhan Aksu. 1982. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In Paul Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Squartini, Mario. 2008. Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian. Linguistics 46(5). 917–947.

  • Squartini, Mario. 2009. Evidentiality, epistemicity, and their diachronic connections to non-factuality. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics, 211–277. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Squartini, Mario. 2012. Evidentiality in interaction: The concessive use of the Italian future between grammar and discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15). 2116–2128.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Tantucci, Vittorio. 2013. Interpersonal evidentiality: The Mandarin V-过 guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the “source of information.” Journal of Pragmatics 57. 210–230.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Tantucci, Vittorio. 2015a. Epistemic inclination and factualization: A synchronic and diachronic study on the semantic gradience of factuality. Language and Cognition 7(3). 371–414.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Tantucci, Vittorio. 2015b. Traversativity and grammaticalization: The aktionsart of 过 guo as a lexical source of evidentiality. Chinese Language and Discourse 6(1). 57–100.

  • Tantucci, Vittorio. 2015c. From immediate to extended intersubjectification: A gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change. Language and Cognition FirstView. (accessed 1 February 2016).

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1). 57–91.

  • Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 3–31. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

  • Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.

Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Intercultural Pragmatics is a fully peer-reviewed forum for theoretical and applied pragmatics research. The journal promotes the development and understanding of pragmatic theory and intercultural competence by publishing research that focuses on general theoretical issues, more than one language and culture, or varieties of one language, while making a special effort to cross disciplinary boundaries.