In: Christopher Hart (ed. 2011) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition.

Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. 193-223.

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity

in political discourse
Legitimising strategies and mystification of
responsibility
Juana I. Marn Arrese

Universidad Complutense de Madrid

1. Introduction
This chapter presents a model for the characterization of the speaker/writers
expression of stance and subjectivity in discourse, which might reveal and account
for similarities and differences in interpersonal styles, as well as across genres and
languages. In characterising the domain of stance, I draw on Langackers (2009:291)
distinction between the effective and the epistemic level: Epistemic relations are
those which hold at the level of knowledge, and thus involve conceptions of reality. By
contrast, effective relations hold at the level of reality itself . The framework proposed
in this chapter distinguishes two categories of stance: effective, which pertains to the
ways in which the speaker/writer, through stancetaking acts, tries to exert control
or influence on the course of reality itself, and epistemic, which pertains to speaker/
writers stancetaking acts concerning knowledge about the events designated.
Meanings expressed by linguistic resources of stance typically include both
contentful and procedural aspects (Blakemore 1987; Traugott & Dasher 2002).
Amongst other resources of epistemic stance, evidential expressions pertain to
the sources of knowledge whereby the speaker validates the information in the
communicated proposition, and epistemic modal expressions concern the speakers estimation of the veracity of an event and the likelihood of its realization
(Sanders & Spooren 1996; Mushin 2001; Plungian 2001; Aikhenvald 2004; Marn
Arrese 2004, inter alia). Effective stance resources involve expressions of deonticity,
assessments and attitudinals. All these stance resources are indexical of the speaker/
writers subjective and intersubjective positioning with respect to the communicated proposition (Langacker 1991, 2000; Marn Arrese 2007, 2009), including the
degree to which they assume personal responsibility for the evaluation of the information or whether the assessment is potentially shared by others (Nuyts 2001).
Political language use is a form of communication which is particularly sensitive
to distortion subject to the interests and power relations of participants; as such, it is

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

a preferred locus for the strategic use of language, in the Habermasian sense. It will
be argued that the use of stance resources involves strategies used by speakers/writers
to manage their interests and thus serves the strategic functions of legitimisation and
coercion (Chilton & Schffner 1997; Chilton 2004). As Chilton (2004:117) observes,
one basic type of legitimising strategy is essentially epistemic in that it has to do with
the speakers claim to have better knowledge, recognition of the real facts. A second type of legitimisation strategy is deontic, where the speaker claims, explicitly or
implicitly, to be not only right in a cognitive sense, but right in a moral sense. The
combined use of the two types of legitimisation strategies can be judged coercive in
that their main rhetorical goal is to persuade (see also Hart & Luke 2007).
Mystification of responsibility for the realization of events involves dimensions
of defocusing of agency, realized by means of expressions in the middle-spontaneouspassive systems (Kemmer 1993; Marn Arrese 2002, 2003; Langacker 2006, inter
alia). However, the evocation of responsibility for the communicated proposition
crucially involves the domain of subjectivity/intersubjectivity, that is, the degree
to which the speaker as conceptualizer is explicit and salient in the discourse or is
implicitly evoked, and the degree to which the expressions index the speaker or an
incompletely defined collectivity, or some implicit conceptualizer which may be
construed as virtual or generalized. By means of stance resources, speakers/writers
not only manage their interests with respect to their goal of persuasion, but also
manage their responsibility for the use of these legitimising strategies, through strategies of mystification such as implicitness and the appeal to shared responsibility.
In this chapter I present results of a case study on the use of these linguistic
resources in political discourse in English and Spanish. The texts analyzed include
two genres of argumentative discourse: political speech and parliamentary statement. Through this comparative study, my aim is to reveal the characterizing
interpersonal features of the speakers in relation to the domains of stance and
subjectivity/intersubjectivity as well as possible intercultural differences in political discourse practices.
This chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 includes some observations
on the notions of stance, subjectivity and political discourse. The corpus study is
described in Section3. The categories of stance, and the results of the corpus study,
are presented in Section 4. The results for subjectivity and intersubjectivity are
discussed in Section5. The final section is devoted to the conclusions.
2. Stance, subjectivity and political discourse
2.1 Effective vs. epistemic stance
The multifaceted nature of stance has been associated with phenomena such
as evaluation, subjectivity, and positioning in discourse. Stance refers to the

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

particular viewpoint or enunciational position of the speaker/writer or of some

other subject of conception, which reflects their attitudes, assessments and knowledge concerning the designated event and/or the communicated proposition.
According to Biber et al. (1999), stance involves three major domains: epistemic
stance, attitudinal stance, and style. Our concern here is with those stance devices
or indices which overtly express an evaluative frame for some other proposition,
which Biber et al. (1999:967) term grammatical stance devices. These linguistic
resources for the expression of speaker/writer stance include modal and evidential expressions, assessments and attitudinal expressions, as well as some forms of
tense-aspect-mood systems.
Stance involves a subjective component of attitude and evaluation, and a dialogic construction of enunciational position which is intersubjective in nature.
From a dialogistic perspective, Martin and White (2005:92) note that there is a tradition in discourse studies in which all utterances are seen as in some way stanced
or attitudinal. These linguistics resources provide the means for the authorial
voice to position itself with respect to, and hence to engage with, the other voices
and alternative positions construed as being in play in the current communicative
context (Martin & White 2005:94). These forms of dialogistic positioning reflect
a speaker/writers interpersonal style and in addition produce specific rhetorical
effects which speakers/writers may bring to bear on the overall function of discourse as social practice.
Following Englebretson (2007), stance may be defined as a dialogically constructed form of social action, which is public and interpretable, and consequential in that it involves responsibility and consequences for the stancetaker in social
terms. The stancetaking act is described by DuBois (2007:163) in the following
terms: Stance is a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt
communicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects
(self and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salient
dimension of the sociocultural field.
The framework presented in this chapter posits two macro-categories of
stance: effective and epsitemic stance. The category of effective stance pertains
to the positioning of the speaker/writer with respect to the realization of events,
to the ways in which the speaker/writer carries out a stance act aimed at determining or influencing the course of reality itself. Epistemic stance refers to the
positioning of the speaker/writer with respect to knowledge concerning the rea
lization of the event, to the ways in which the speaker/writer carries out a stance
act aimed at estimating the likelihood of an event and/or judging the validity of a
proposition designating the event. This framework allows for finer-grained distinctions within each category, and systematically relates speaker/writers stance
choices with differing degrees of subjectivity/intersubjectivity (Marn Arrese
2007, 2009).

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

2.2 Subjectivity and intersubjectivity

The formulation of subjectivity as the capacity of the speaking self to view him/
herself as subject of enunciation (sujet dnonciation) is found in the seminal work
by Benveniste (1966[1958]). He drew attention to the fact that the relationship of
intersubjectivity between the speaker/writer and addressee/reader is a basic condition for linguistic communication. As Finegan (1995:12) defines the notion,
subjectivity concerns expression of self and the representation of a speakers (or,
more generally, a locutionary agents) perspective or point of view in discourse
(a speakers imprint). The subjectivity of discourse is a crucial factor or facet of
language, since it concerns language as an expression an incarnation, even
of perceiving, feeling, speaking subjects. Similarly, Lyons (1977, 1995) and Traugott (1995) are concerned with the expression of self, with how the semantics of
an expression relates to the speaker (subjectivity) or whether it is non-speakerrelated (objectivity). An objective use of language has been typically associated
with linguistic expressions where the speaker/writers viewpoint is not explicitly
coded (i.e. nominalization, passive, etc.). The use of more subjective language is
associated with various ways in which the speaker/writer is present, either through
reference to the source of their information (i.e. evidentiality), to their epistemological stance (i.e. epistemic modals), or through their evaluations (i.e. attitudinal
expressions) regarding the realization of events.
Langackers (1991) notion of subjectivity is explained drawing on perceptual notions. In a situation of optimal viewing arrangement there is maximal
asymmetry between the viewer or subject of perception and the scene viewed
or object of perception. The viewer (subject of conception) remains offstage,
thus being implicit and construed with maximal subjectivity, whereas the entity
which is the focus of attention (the object of conception) is onstage, and is
salient and objectively construed. In contrast, in a situation of egocentric viewing arrangement, the viewer goes onstage, thus becoming more salient and
objectified.
In terms of the conceptual analogue of these perceptual notions, the speaker
is by default the subject of conception, and the object of conception is the entity
which is put onstage and profiled by an expression. In the default situation,
the speaker/writer as conceptualizer is offstage, a ground element, implicitly
evoked, and hence construed subjectively. In contrast, when the speaker/writer,
or some other facet of the ground, is placed onstage, made explicit and salient
as part of the object of conception, they are objectively construed. According to
Langacker (2002:17),
An entity is construed objectively to the extent that it is distinct from the
conceptualizer and is put onstage as a salient object of conception. Being the

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

focal point within the onstage region, an expressions profile has a high degree
of objectivity. An entity receives a subjective construal to the extent that it
functions as the subject of conception but not as the object. The highest degree of
subjectivity thus attaches to the speaker and hearer, specifically in regard to those
expressions that do not in any way include them within their scope.

As de Smet and Verstraete (2006:369) point out, both Langackers subjective and
objective are speaker-related, and therefore subjective (in Traugotts terms).
An additional facet of subjectivity pertains to the notion of speaker/writer
commitment and/or responsibility for the communicated proposition. Nuyts
(2001) conceives the dimension of subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity as the degree
to which the speaker assumes personal responsibility for the evaluation of the evidence (subjectivity) or whether the assessment is potentially shared by others
(intersubjectivity).
On the basis of these notions, my own proposal considers the interaction of
two parameters of subjectivity/intersubjectivity: degree of salience and explicitness of the role of the conceptualizer, and personal vs. shared responsibility.
2.3 Texts, genres and discourses
Texts are situated in social events, and are shaped by social structures and social
practices, as well as by the social agents involved in the events. As Fairclough
(2003:22) argues, social agents texture texts, they create meanings as an effect of
the relations that they set up between elements of texts. In the process of meaningcreation, there is a representation component of meaning, an action component,
and an identification component, the latter pertaining to the relations with oneself, and thus to subjectivity. As Fairclough (2003:27) notes:
texts simultaneously represent aspects of the world (the physical world, the
social world, the mental world); enact social relations between participants in
social events and the attitudes, desires and values of participants; and coherently
and cohesively connect parts of texts together, and connect texts with their
situational contexts.

Social structures are abstract entities whose relationship to events is mediated by

intermediate organizational entities or social practices. In terms of language and
communication, these correspond to what Fairclough (1992) terms orders of discourse. As Fairclough (2003:2425) defines them,
orders of discourse are the social organization and control of linguistic
variation, and their elements (discourses, genres, styles) are correspondingly not
purely linguistic categories but categories which cut across the division between
language and non-language, the discoursal and the non-discoursal.

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

Discourse is present in social practice in the form of genres, that is, as different
ways of interacting discoursally (i.e. a political speech), in the form of discourses,
in the sense of representations of social practices (i.e. the political discourse of New
Labour), or as styles, that is, as constituting particular ways of being, particular
social or personal identities (Fairclough 2003:26).
The notion of genre as a discoursal activity crucially involves the purposes of
the activity. In discussing purposes, Habermas (1984) distinction between communicative and strategic action is particularly relevant, that is, interaction oriented
to arriving at understanding, as opposed to interaction oriented to getting results
(Fairclough 2003:71). Fairclough (2000) argues that certain genres are instrumental in sustaining the institutional structure of contemporary society, these are the
genres of governance. They are purpose-driven genres in which interaction is predominantly strategic (i.e. political speeches, parliamentary statements).
Genres contribute to create relations between different types of social agents,
organizations, groups, or individuals. These relations vary in dimensions such as
power, or social hierarchy, and solidarity, or social distance (Brown & Gilman
1960). Political discourse, in the form of political speeches, parliamentary statements, etc., is one such instance of communication between organizations (government, political parties) and individuals, in which interaction is basically strategic.
Since texts and interactions are open to creativity, we may find cases where texts
blend or hybridize genres, as in the widespread use of conversational features in
different genres such as news broadcasts and other forms of public discourse (conversationalization of public discourse, Fairclough 1992). As Fairclough (2003:76)
notes, genres of governance are pervasively characterized by simulated social relations which [] tend to mystify social hierarchy and social distance. A manifestation of this phenomenon is the case of political leaders such as Tony Blair, who
appear to be speaking for themselves as individuals rather than in their political
role (i.e. as Prime Minister). The strategic use of personal reference (I believe),
the use of inclusive we, all contribute to evoke the type of interaction found in
equal encounters, characterized by minimum social hierarchy and social distance.
Though the analysis of the ideological implications of the use of these resources is
beyond the scope of the present research chapter, we will bear them in mind in the
discussion of the rhetorical strategies of the speakers.
3. The corpus study
Discursive and textual articulation in the different discourse domains, understood as different contexts of communication between speaker/writer and hearer/
reader, is, I believe, a product of the interaction between conceptualization,

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

c ommunicative intentions and psycho-social and cultural norms and values. The
study of the manifestation of these factors in language will thus contribute to
understand how texts and discourses are shaped, and the way different speakers/
writers engage in communication mediated by their roles, their personal or political goals, and the various cultural discourse practices.
On the micro-level of identity, the use of stance resources contributes to
index ideological positioning and political identity, which is reflected in these
politicians stancetaking acts and their expression of inter/subjectivity, and in
the similarities and/or differences in their interpersonal styles and their strategic
use of language.
It is hypothesized that variation in the use of stance resources, and in the
expression of inter/subjectivity, by speakers/writers engaging in a particular
social role (President, Prime Minister, President of Government), and their corresponding personal and political goals, in the various discourse domains (political discourse) and genres (political speech, parliamentary statement), will reveal
characteristic differences between the speakers interpersonal styles. Variation will
also reveal characteristic differences of discourse practices across languages and
cultures. Though no claims can be made regarding intercultural differences on the
basis of the corpus used in this case study, it is relevant to note that certain features
which exhibit significant differences in these samples of political discourse have
also been found in previous studies of journalistic discourse (Marn Arrese 2004,
2006; Marn Arrese et al. 2004), and political discourse (Marn Arrese 2007).
3.1 The texts
This chapter aims to characterize the interpersonal style1 of three politicians
George Bush, former President of the USA, Anthony Blair, former British Prime
Minister, and Jos Mara Aznar Lpez, former President of Government of Spain
in terms of their expression of stance and subjectivity in parliamentary statements and political speeches. In this case study I have worked with the transcripts
of the following three texts:2

. It must be borne in mind that the parliamentary statements and political speeches analyzed are not simply the result of a single conceptualizing mind, but the collegiate effort of the
assessors or speech writers of the P, PM or PG.
. The labels used for the texts are the following:
B-SP: Bush, Political speech
BL-PS: Blair, Parliamentary statement
A-PS: Aznar, Parliamentary statement

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

a. (B-SP): George Bush, President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, Speech at Cincinnati
Museum Center Cincinnati Union Terminal, Cincinnati, Ohio, 7 October
2002 (3,374 words)
b. (BL-PS): Anthony Blair, Prime Ministers statement opening Iraq debate in
Parliament, 18 March 2003 (4,874 words)
c. (A-PS): Jos M Aznar Lpez, Comparecencia del Presidente de Gobierno
ante el Pleno de la Cmara, para informar sobre la situacin internacional
en relacin con Irak y la posicin del Gobierno de la nacin, 18 March 2003
(3,811 words) (President of Governments statement in Parliamentary plenary
session to inform about the international situation in relation to Iraq and the
position of the Government).
The Parliamentary statements by Blair and Aznar, arguing in favour of military
action against Iraq, take place only two days after the statement issued by US
President George W. Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish President
of Government Jose Maria Aznar at their summit meeting in the Azores, on 16
March 2003. Both statements are very similar in content and proposals to the
speech by President George Bush at Cincinnati Museum Center.
3.2 Research objectives and procedure
In order to test the hypotheses, the following research objectives are defined. The
aim is to:
i. Characterize the presence and patterning of the expression of effective and
epistemic stance in the discourse of the three politicians, by identifying, classifying and quantifying the various linguistic resources used;
ii. Reveal the role of these linguistic resources as indices of differing degrees of
subjectivity and intersubjectivity;
iii. Establish comparisons of the similarities or differences in the use of these
resources by the three speakers, in order to reveal the rhetorical potential of
these resources, and the exploitation of their persuasive effects by the speakers.
The texts were examined and tagged manually in the first instance to identify
the tokens of effective and epistemic markers present. An electronic search using
Monoconc was carried out to ensure that all the instances present in the texts had
been identified. The examples found were then analysed and tagged according to
the parameters and dimensions further specified in Sections3 and 4. The categories identified and the tags used are the following:
i. Stance: EF-Effective stance, EP-Epistemic stance; and
ii. Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity: SE-Subjective Explicit, IE-Intersubjective
Explicit, SI-Subjective Implicit, IO-Intersubjective Opaque.

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

The data were submitted to further analysis for the quantitative results. The chisquare test was run to establish the cases where differences between frequencies
were significant. The value of significance was established at p<0.05. The chi-square
provides a method for testing the degree to which there is association between the
variables in a contingency table. The null hypothesis H0 assumes that there is no
association between the variables, while the alternative hypothesis Ha claims that
variation is due to association between the variables. The chi-square test measures
the divergence of the observed values from the expected values under the null
hypothesis of no association. If the P-value is significant, it indicates that there is
some association between the variables, so that the observed values are not due to
random variation.
4. Effective and epistemic stance in discourses
In this chapter I present a proposal for the study of stance which integrates
Langackers (2007, 2009) distinction between the effective and the epistemic
levels with prior work on stance and engagement (Biber et al. 1999; Brandt 2004;
Martin & White 2005), and on modality and evidentiality in discourse (Marn
Arrese 2004, 2006, 2007).
Effective stance pertains to speaker/writers evaluative positioning towards the
realization of the event, in the expression of their attitudes and assessments regarding the designated event. Expressions within this domain include various forms of
event modality (Palmer 2001:22), that is, deontic and volitive modality, the modal
domains of participant-internal or participant-external possibility and necessity (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998), as well attitudinal predicates expressing
speaker/writers inclination, intention or necessity with regard to the occurrence of
the event (I hope, I insist, This requires,).
Epistemic stance pertains to speaker/writers estimations regarding the
prospects for realization of the profiled clausal process (p) designating the
event, that is, the possibility, the prediction or the certainty of ps realization
(Langacker 2007:67), and indications of the validity status of the communicated proposition. Expressions of epistemic stance include the domain of propositional modality, which comprises epistemic and evidential modality (Palmer
2001:8) (May/might, I think, It seems,).
4.1 Effective stance
Within the category of effective stance, as we can see in Table 1, I have included
a variety of expressions which describe speakers attitudes towards an event:
judgements of desirability, intentionality, necessity or possibility of the event
occurring.

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

Table 1. Effective stance markers

Effective stance (EF)
Deonticity: Deontic modals and modals
of possibility and necessity, and adverbs,
predicative adjs. and nominals.

must, should .
can, could, cannot .
have to, need to .
It is necessary to, It is impossible to
Assessments: Personal and impersonal
That requires ; We are required to;.
predicates expressing desirability, requirement It is essential to.
or normativity
It is right to ; It is time to; It is fair to
Attitudinals: Modals of volition and personal I will/wont, I would not .
predicates expressing inclination, intention, or I wanted/intended to , I hoped .
commitment.
I am/was determined to
Directives: Personal predicates of
We urging.
communication used with a directive
Let me make it clear.
illocutionary force. Imperatives and hortatives. Let us recall

Deonticity: Deontic modality refers to the enabling or compelling circumstances external to the participant as some person(s), often the speaker, and/or as
some social or ethical norm(s) permitting or obliging the participant to engage in
the state of affairs (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998:81).

(1) Knowing these realities, America must [[EF]], SI not ignore the threat
gathering against us. (B-SP:97)

(2) , to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement

mechanisms will have to [[EF]], SI be very different. (B-SP:101)

Within the domain of possibility and necessity, we also find expressions which
identify either the participants ability or capacity, or their need to carry out the
event designated. Alternatively, they may refer to the circumstances external to the
participant which make the event possible or necessary.

(3) Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot [[EF]], SI wait for the final
proof the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud (B-SP:98)

Assessments: This category includes matrix predicates which designate the speakers expression of judgements of desirability, necessity or possibility of the occurrence of a particular situation (That requires,), and other non-verbal expressions
(duty, ), as for example.

(4) law regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of
the same evil. Our security requires [[EF]], IO that we confront both.
(B-SP:92)

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

(5) , we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty
[[EF]], IE to prevent the worst from occurring. (B-SP:99)

The category also includes miscellaneous expressions involving impersonal constructions which indicate generalized inclination or advisability of the events realization, or which describe the emotive reaction of the speaker with respect to the
occurrence of the event (It is crucial, It is urgent, It is right, It is time to,) (cf. Bhatt
2006: covert forms of modality).

(6) To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial [[EF]], IO
to winning the war on terror. (B-SP:90)

In Spanish, verbal periphrastic expressions of deonticity include modal verbs

deber (must/should), poder (can) + infinitive, or the verbs haber/tener (have)
+ subordinator que (that) + infinitive, as well as modal periphrasis, haber de
(have of) + infinitive. Non-verbal markers include predicative adjectives and
nominals followed either by an infinitive, es necesario (it is necessary to ),
or by a finite clause in the subjunctive, es necesario que (it is necessary to ),
and nominal periphrasis, el deber de (the duty of/to) (Gmez Torrego 1999;
Ridruejo 1999).

(7) Lamentablemente, hemos de constatar que Sadam Husein ha despreciado

su ltima oportunidad y debe [[EF]], SI, por tanto, hacer frente a las
consecuencias de su decisin de violar flagrantemente las normas de
(A-PS:53) (Regrettably, we have to confirm that Sadam Husein has
disregarded his last chance and must [[EF]], SI, therefore, face the
consequences of his decision to flagrantly violate the norms of )

(8) Por eso Espaa no puede [[EF]], SI mirar hacia otro lado en una crisis
como sta. (A-PS:71) (That is why Spain cannot [[EF]], SI look the other
way in a crisis like this.)

(9) Si queremos un mundo en paz y seguro, en el cual las democracias no se

vean amenazadas ni chantajeadas, tenemos que [[EF]], SI reafirmar la
solidaridad del vnculo entre Europa y Norteamrica y (A-PS:87) (If we
want a world in peace and secure, in which democracies are not threatened
or blackmailed, we have to [[EF]], SI reaffirm the solidarity of the link
between Europe and North America and )

Expressions of assessment referring to desirability, requirement or normativity found in the Spanish corpus include: requiere (requires), corresponde hacer
(should be done), es esencial (it is essential), es urgente (it is urgent), le conviene
(it is convenient for), as can be seen in the following examples.

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

(10) Una paz segura y estable requiere [[EF]], SI sin duda de gobiernos que
sepan tomar decisiones y (A-PS:111) (A secure and stable peace requires
[[EF]], SI no doubt governments which are capable of taking decisions
and )
(11) Creo, sin duda, que es lo que corresponde hacer [[EF]], IO en un
rgimen de democracia representativa como el nuestro. (A-PS:47)
(I believe, no doubt, that this is what ought to be done [[EF]], IO in a
regime of representative democracy such as ours.)
(12) El desarme del rgimen de Sadam Husein es esencial [[EF]], IO para
que el mundo viva con menos amenazas, (A-PS:66) (Disarming the
regime of Sadam Husein is essential [[EF]], IO so that the world may live
with fewer threats, )
(13) Realmente, en este caso es urgente [[EF]], IO advertir que se va aplicar ya
la legalidad internacional. (A-PS:51) (Really, in this case it is urgent [[EF]],
IO to warn that international law will be aplied.)

Attitudinals: This category comprises the use of matrix predicates designating speakers inclination and volition (I hope, We want, Im not willing,),
or intention (We resolved, I plan, ) regarding the realization of the event
(cf. effective matrix predicates, Langacker 2007), as well as predicative adjectives
(We are resolved to,), relational constructions involving nominals and sentence adverbs.
(14) I hope [[EF]], SE this will not require military action, but it may.
(B-SP:115)
(15) We resolved EF, IE then, and we are resolved [[EF]], IE today, to
confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and
suffering (B-SP:78)
(16) Im not willing [[EF]], SE to stake one American life on trusting Saddam
Hussein. (B-SP:128)

Expressions of volitive modality (modals will, wont), also included in this category, are concerned with the expression of volition or intention of the speaker
and/or participant engaged in the event. These expressions often bear a commissive force when they involve speaker cum participant combinations.
(17) Saddam Hussein must disarm himself or, for the sake of peace, we will
[[EF]], IE lead a coalition to disarm him. (B-SP:109)

Intentions in Spanish are typically designated by the future tense or by verbal

periphrasis ir a (going to) + infinitive: seguiremos (we will go on). Other attitudinal expressions found in the Spanish corpus include: deseamos (we wish), quiero
(I want), es mi intencin (it is my intention to), etc.

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

(18) Necesitamos, pues, a nuestros amigos y a nuestros aliados y, en

consecuencia, seguiremos [[EF]], IE trabajando para reforzar la amistad
y la solidaridad entre Europa y los Estados Unidos, (A-PS:89) (We thus
need our friends and our allies and, therefore, we will go on [[EF]], IE
working to reinforce friendship and solidarity between Europe and the
United States, )
(19) Deseamos [[EF]], IE la coexistencia en paz, seguridad y libertad de dos
Estados: Israel y una Palestina independiente y democrtica. (A-PS:63) (We
wish for [[EF]], IE peaceful coexistence, security and freedom in the two
states: Israel and an independent and democratic Palestine.)
(20) Es mi intencin [[EF]], SE invitar al nuevo primer ministro palestino,
Abu Mazen, a visitar Espaa tan pronto como sea confirmado en sus
funciones. (A-PS:64) (It is my intention [[EF]], SE to invite the new
Palestinian Prime Minister, Abu Mazen, to visit Spain as soon as he is
confirmed in office.)

Directives: The use of expressions in the Imperative mood with a conventional

directive force, or with a hortative value, are also found.
(21) Let me [[EF]], SI explain the nature of this threat as I see it. (BL-PS:132)
(22) And let us EF, SI recall: what was shocking about 11 September was not
just the slaughter of the innocent;(BL-PS:134)

This category also includes examples of performative uses of verbs of communication with a directive illocutionary force (We are urging,), or other expressions
(We agree that, ) which also denote the effective stance of the speaker cum participant with regard to the realization of the event. Similarly in Spanish we find
expressions, such as solicito (I am asking), with a directive force.
(23) And that is why we are urging [[EF]], IE the Security Council to adopt a
new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. (B-SP:102)
(24) Esta es la cuarta ocasin en que solicito [[EF]], SE debatir con los grupos
polticos sobre el desarrollo de esta crisis en un perodo de un mes y medio.
(A-PS:46) (This is the fourth time in which I ask [[EF]], SE to debate with
the political groups about the development of this crisis in a period of a
month and a half.)

4.2 Epistemic stance

Expressions of epistemic stance include a variety of expressions which designate
situations in which the speaker as conceptualizer expresses knowledge about the
event or some form of estimation regarding its potential realization, as shown in
Table 2.

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

Table 2. Epistemic stance markers

Epistemic stance (EP)
Epistemic modality: Epistemic modals;
Adverbs, predicative adjs. and nominals

must, will, would, may

I was certain, It was likely
Certainly, Perhaps, Indeed
Truth-Factual validity: Personal and
I am confident that
Impersonal predicates expressing
The truth is.., The fact is
factive or affective meanings; Adverbs,
In my judgement
predicative adjs. and nominals
Frankly
Experiential evidentiality: Personal
We have seen, We have experienced
predicates of perceptual or mental
What is perfectly clear
observation; Adverbs, predicative adjs.
It is evident, It was obvious
and nominals
Obviously, Clearly, Palpably
Cognitive evidentiality: Personal
I think, I have come to the conclusion
predicates of mental state; Adverbs,
We all know, We have learned
predicative adjs. and nominals
That means.., Presumably
Comunicative evidentiality: Personal
I say to you , I said
predicates of communication and verbal That suggests, That implies
interaction

Epistemic Modality: Expressions of epistemic modality concern speakers

estimations of the prospects for realization of the event designated. They encode
different degrees of certainty regarding the likelihood of its realization. Degrees of
speaker certainty are typically characterized as: high certainty or necessity (must,
cannot, certainly, ), medium certainty or probability (will, would, should, probably, ), and low certainty or possibility (may, could, perhaps, ) (van der Auwera &
Plungian 1998; Palmer 2001, inter alia).
(25)  talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it
must [[EP]], SI be under the lash of Saddam. (BL-PS:80)
(26) And Saddam Hussein would [[EP]], SI be in a position to pass nuclear
technology to terrorists. (B-SP:29)
(27) An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may [[EP]], SI attempt cruel
and desperate measures. (B-SP:48)

Also included in this category are predicative adjectives in expressions which

either explicitly or implicitly invoke the subject of conceptualization, and sentence
adverbs (I was certain, It was likely, certainly, perhaps,).
(28) And there is perhaps [[EP]], SI a lack of full understanding of US
preoccupations after 11th September. (BL-PS:67)

Verbal markers of epistemic modality in Spanish take the form of modal verb
deber (must/should) or poder (may/might)+ infinitive: debe ser (it must be),

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

puede ser (it may be), pudiera ser (it might be); tener que (have to) + infinitive: tiene que ser (it must be); or modal + complement clause in the subjunctive mood: puede que sea(it may be). They also comprise modal periphrasis:
haber de (have of), deber de (must of) + infinitive: ha de ser(it must be), debe
de ser (it must/should be). Bybee et al. (1994) have pointed out that epistemic
necessity may derive from a future marker. In Spanish epistemic meaning may
be expressed by verbal inflection in the future tense (*r/rn) or by the conditional (*ra/ran); epistemic qualifications are also associated with the future perfect marker (habr/n+PP). Non-verbal markers include adverbs and adverbial
expressions: sin duda (no doubt), ciertamente (certainly/truly), desde luego (of
course), probablemente (probably), quiz/quizs (perhaps), seguramente (surely),
tal vez (maybe); adjectives: posible (possible), probable (probable), seguro (sure);
and nominals: la certeza (the certainty), la seguridad (the security) (Gmez
Torrego 1999; Ridruejo 1999). Examples found in the Spanish corpus include the
subjunctive form of the modal verb, puedan (might), various verbs in the future
and future perfect, harn (will do), se producirn (will take place), and non-verbal
markers, sin duda (no doubt), tal vez (maybe), quiz (perhaps).
(29)  donde la comunidad internacional trabaje por la seguridad mundial,
afrontando y resolviendo esta crisis y las que en el futuro se puedan [[EP]],
SI presentar. (A-PS:38)(where the international community work for
world security, facing and solving this crisis and those which might [[EP]],
SI take place in the future.)
(30) Tambin en los das venideros se producirn [[EP]], SI nuevas
declaraciones. (A-PS:27) (In the following days there will [[EP]], SI also
be new declarations.)
(31) El Consejo de Seguridad, seoras, no ha fracasado, tal vez [[EP]], SI lo
que haya fracasado haya sido una poltica de contencin seguida durante
doce aos que ha permitido (A-PS:25) (The Security Council, Right
Honourable members, has not failed, perhaps [[EP]], SI what has failed
may have been a policy of contention followed for twelve years which has
allowed )

Truth-Factual Validity: Personal and impersonal constructions designating

judgements about truth or likelihood are also found (The truth is, in my judgement), as in the following example.
(32) The truth is [[EP]], SI our patience should have been exhausted weeks and
months and years ago. (BL-PS:24)

Experiential evidentials: This category includes evidential markers that emphasize the perceptual aspect of the acquisition of the information (cf. Fitneva 2001),

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

indicating that the speaker has direct personal sensory access to the evidence, or
that the evidence is perceptually available to her/himself and others, including the
addressee/reader (We have seen, We have witnessed, We have experienced,).
(33) We have seen [[EP]], IE that those who hate America are willing to crash
airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. (B-SP:31)
(34) Weve experienced [[EP]], IE the horror of September the 11th. (B-SP:30)

Indirect perceptual markers may also emphasize the inferential process in the
acquisition of information on the basis of observable results; that is, the evidence is presented as a sign, or a direct proof, for the claim (Sanders 1999:478).
Such expressions include: lexical verbs (It appears, That shows, That reveals,),
predicative adjectives (It became clear, It is obvious,), and sentence adverbs and
adverbials (clearly, palpably,).
(35) And surveillance photos reveal [[EP]], IO that the regime is rebuilding
facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
(B-SP:4)
(36) Clearly [[EP]], IO, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or
enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. (B-SP:40)

Expressions in Spanish similarly include verbal and non-verbal markers of direct

and indirect access to the evidence. Verbal markers of experiential stance include:
encontrar (find), mostrar (show), parecer (seem), indicar (indicate), quedar patente (be patent), quedar claro (be clear). Common non-verbal markers in Spanish
include: al parecer (seemingly), aparentemente (apparently), obviamente (obviously), claramente (clearly), evidentemente (evidently), though none was found
in our text.
(37) , fanticos que saben como dividirnos para que parezca [[EP]], IO
adems que somos los dems los que ponemos en peligro la convivencia.
(A-PS:20) (, fanatics who know how to divide us so that it would seem
[[EP]], IO moreover that it is the rest of us who are endangering
coexistence.)
(38) Ha quedado patente [[EP]], IO la negativa de Sadam Husein a efectuar
el desarme al que est obligado, (A-PS:10) (Sadam Huseins refusal
to carry out the disarmament to which he is obliged has become patent
[[EP]], IO, )

Cognitive evidentials: This category pertains to the mental world of the speaker.
It involves the use of mental state predicates (I believe, I think, We know, I am
convinced,), non-verbal markers (doubtless, without doubt), and relational and

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

existential constructions involving nominals (My guess was, There was no doubt in
my mind, My belief,).
(39) I believe [[EP]], SE we must hold firm. (BL-PS:3)

Indirect cognitive markers describe access to the information as a result of mental

processes (I have come to the conclusion, I gather,). I have also included some
predicates which refer to inferential processes involving knowledge interpretation
(That means,).
(40) I have come to the conclusion [[EP]], SE after much reluctance that the
greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass (BL-PS:58)
(41) Approving this resolution does not mean [[EP]], IO that military action is
imminent or unavoidable. (B-SP:64)

Cognitive evidentials in Spanish also include direct markers: Creer (believe/think),

conocer (know), entender (understand), and indirect markers: significar (mean).
Other examples found in the text include impersonal constructions, es conocida
(it is known).
(42) Adems creemos [[EP]], IE firmemente que Irak no debe volver a
convertirse en refugio para ningn tipo de terroristas. (A-PS:13)
(In addition, we firmly believe [[EP]], IE that Irak should never
again become a refuge for any type of terrorists.)
(43) Conocemos [[EP]], IE la magnitud del dao que los terroristas ya han
causado, conocemos la capacidad devastadora que alcanzaran con armas
de destruccin masiva. (A-PS:34) (We know [[EP]], IE the magnitude of
the harm the terrorists have already caused, we know the devastating
capacity that they would attain with weapons of mass destruction.)

Communicative evidentials: This category includes examples of self-reference

to current or previous acts of communication or self-attribution (I say to you,
I said), whereby the speakers not only communicate their knowledge of the
event but also validate the proposition by appealing to their authority as public
personae.
(44) When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said [[EP]], SE that
those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
(B-SP:15).

Also found are examples of reference to verbal agreement (We agree that ), and
indirect evidential involving meaning-shifts from the domain of verbal communication to the domains of knowledge and belief, including cognitive conclusional
processes (i.e. concluding is implying) (That suggests, That implies, ).

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

(45) , in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach
and that 1441 implies [[EP]], IO action in such circumstances.
(BL-PS:32).

In Spanish we find similar verbal expressions, afirmar (state), reiterar (repeat),

estar de acuerdo (agree), implicar (imply). Examples of self-attribution are also
found in Spanish: informar (inform).
(46) Seora presidenta, creo no exagerar si afirmo [[EP]], SE que la
que estamos viviendo en estas semanas es la crisis internacional ms
determinante desde (A-PS:19) (Madam President, I do not think I
exaggerate if I state [[EP]], SE that what are going through these past
weeks is the greatest international crisis since )

4.3 Effective vs. epistemic stance: Results and discussion

The use of expressions of effective stance evokes a form of potency or force which is
inherent in the social interaction between speaker and hearer.3 This force is meant
to be effective: it is aimed at actually bringing about the occurrence of the onstage
process designated by the grounded verb (Langacker 2007:14). The use of effective
stance markers signal the speakers position with regard to the necessity or desirability of the realization of events, and are intended to have an effective persuasive effect. By contrast, the use of epistemic stance markers, whose force is merely
predictive with respect to the profiled process (Langacker 2007:14), concerns the
knowledge of events and the validity status of the information. In rhetorical terms,
these stance markers reflect the speakers concern with the acceptance of the information as valid on the part of the hearer, and are an indication of the way in which
they use legitimisation strategies in order to manage their interests.
Table 3 shows the global results for effective (EF) and epistemic (EP) stance
for the three politicians. The results are given in raw numbers, and frequency
per thousand words. The distribution for effective and epistemic stance in the
discourse of the three politicians is significant;4 there is association between
politician and choice of stance mode.

. Langacker (2003:14) notes that if the speaker or hearer are not themselves the source and
target of the social force, but merely convey it, they may nonetheless experience it vicariously
through empathy.
. The Chi Square test using raw numbers gives the following results: Chi-square = 12.5,
df: 2, p 0.002. The test was also calculated on the basis of results of the ratios per 10,000
words, since the number of words of the texts differed considerably: Chi-square = 30.3083,

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

Table 3. Effective and epistemic stance markers

Stance

Bush

Blair

3,374 words

Effective (EF)
Epistemic (EP)
TOTAL

63
74
137

18.67
21.93
40.60

4,874 words

70
102
172

14.36
20.92
35.28

Aznar
3,811 words
N

72
45
117

18.89
11.80
30.70

In general terms, we find a cline in the ratio of use of stance markers, with
Bush at the higher end. It has been observed that total commitment to truth is
zero-marked in most languages, reflecting the workings of our cultural models
regarding knowledge, whereby information is assumed to be true unless otherwise
indicated (Matlock 1989; Bybee et al. 1994). In this case, both Bush and Blair use
the highest ratio of epistemic stance markers (R = 21.93 and R = 20.92), which
would reflect a lesser degree of commitment to truth. In contrast, Aznar appears
to be the most committed speaker. These observed differences might be due to
intercultural differences. In the context of intercultural pragmatics, it has been
suggested that there are sociopragmatic differences in the way different cultures
deal with the resolution of the conflict between politeness and sincerity (Thomas
1983; Wierzbicka 1991). In this respect, there is a tendency in Spanish to uphold
truthfulness over politeness, which might have a reflection in the lower use of epistemic stance markers in discourse. In a study on the use of modality and evidentiality in newspaper discourse (editorials and news reports) in English and Spanish
(Marn Arrese 2006), it was found that the ratio (per thousand words) of use of
epistemic modal qualifications in English was 3.19, in contrast with Spanish, 1.59;
and as regards evidential qualifications, the figures were 3.10 for English, and 1.88
for Spanish. However, further research is necessary in this respect.
Figure 1 illustrates the overall results for effective and epistemic stance in the
discourse of Bush, Blair and Aznar (ratio per thousand words).

Df: 2, p 0.000. There is very strong evidence in both cases against the null hypothesis, since
the observed values are not due to random variation.

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

45
40
35
30
Effective
Epistemic
Total

25
20
15
10
5
0

Bush

Blair

Aznar

Figure 1. Stance markers in the discourse of Bush, Blair and Aznar

The results for stance differ mainly in:

i. Effective stance: The figures for Aznar are considerably higher in the effective category in comparison to those of the category of epistemic stance. His
discourse is markedly oriented towards the expression of intentions, necessity
or desirability of the realization of the designated event.
ii. Epistemic stance: Blairs discourse is characterized by a higher use of markers
of epistemic stance. His discourse relies more on assessments relating to the
knowledge of events. The same may be said of Bush, though the difference
between the two modes is less marked in his case.
This observed variation seems to reflect differences in the interpersonal strategies of argumentation between the speakers. The preferred mode of persuasion
in the case of Blair is based on the use of epistemic legitimising strategies. In the
case of Bush there is almost a balance between the use of both types of strategies.
A balance between persuasion linked to the occurrence of events, and persuasion linked to the validity of the communicated information. Aznar, on the other
hand, relies more on effective legitimising strategies. Intercultural differences
may also be observed in the preference for effective stance resources as a strategy
for persuasion in Spanish, as previous results indicate. In Marin Arrese (2007), it
was found that the figures for effective stance markers (attitudinal stance) in the
discourse (parliamentary statement and political speech) of Rodrguez Zapatero,
the Spanish President of Government, were considerably higher than those of
Blair. In a previous contrastive study of newspaper discourse (leading articles and
opinion columns) in English and Spanish (Marn Arrese et al. 2004), we found
that the expression of writer stance in our corpus of English relied mainly on
markers of epistemic modality, whereas Spanish favoured the use of markers of
deontic modality. Further research in various argumentative genres and more
data is necessary in order to make any substantive claims regarding intercultural
differences in the use of legitimising strategies.

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

5. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in discourses

5.1 Salience of conceptualizer role
Subjectivity has been characterized by Langacker (1991, 2000, 2002) in terms
of the roles of the conceptualizer and the conceptualization s/he entertains.
The speaker, as ground element, serves the role of subject of conception and
source of the predication, but may also become an object of conception as a
participant within the predication. When explicitly mentioned, in expressions
with personal predicates (I have to say, I saw, I believe,), the speaker is objectified since in addition to the role of conceptualizer, s/he is also part of the
conceptualization.
In the case of modals, the conceptualizer is implicit, so that his/her role is less
prominent and more subjectified. Nonetheless, as Sanders (1999:473) notes, to
the extent that the conceptualizer functions as an implicit point of reference, the
speakers active consciousness is also evoked. One of the grammatical properties of grounding elements such as modals is that an utterance with a modal does
not readily accept an expansion to include the explicit mention of the speaker
or hearer (*For me, there could have been). As Langacker (2002:13) notes, a
grounding element does not specifically mention the ground, despite evoking it
as a reference point. Impersonal modal predicates (it is possible, ) are not considered grounding elements as such, though they do invoke a conceptualizer,
the actor whose conception of reality is at stake. In the case of impersonal modal
adverbs, the conceptualizer evoked by the adverb is typically identified by default
with the actual speaker (Langacker 2004).
With impersonal perceptual and cognitive evidentials (it seems, that means),
where the presence of the speaking subject is opaque; there is only covert reference
to the ground, so that the role of the conceptualizer is almost maximally subjective. Langacker (2000:350) notes that with an expression such as it seems, the conceptualizer may be only potential or is construed generically or in a generalized
fashion. In contrast with modals, impersonal evidential expressions accept expansions which include the explicit mention of the speaker/writer (It seems to me, It
sounds to me like , For me, that means that , It is clear to me that ). I would
argue that in this case the speaker/writer is presenting the complement proposition
as part of the epistemic dominion of a virtual conceptualizer (Langacker 2004), but
one which is intersubjectively available. The speaker/writer, by identifying with this
intersubjective virtual conceptualizer, narrows down the mental activity to him/
herself.
Drawing on these notions, a continuum may be identified in the dimension
of subjectivity in terms of the parameter degree of salience or overtness of the
role of the conceptualizer, and degree to which there is foregrounding of the

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

speakers consciosness. The continuum ranges from cases where the conceptualizer is onstage as part of the conceptualization and is thus encoded as the explicit
source of the evaluation, to those where the conceptualizer is implicit and nonsalient, and finally to those where the role of the current speaker as source of the
evaluation is opaque since the expression evokes a virtual or generalized conceptualizer (Marn Arrese 2007).
Explicit

Implicit

Opaque

I think...

That may...

It seems...

Figure 2. Salience of the role of conceptualizer

5.2 Subjective and intersubjective evidentiality

An additional dimension of subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity concerns the degree
to which the speaker assumes personal responsibility for the communicated proposition (subjective) or presents the information as shared or potentially shared
by others (intersubjective) (Nuyts 2001), as indicated in Figure3 (Marn Arrese
2007).
Personal
I think...

Opaque

Shared

It seems...
That may ...

We know

Figure 3. Personal vs. shared responsibility

Expressions designating the speaker explicitly (I think, I am sure, ) indicate that the speaker/writer personally subscribes to the assessment. Epistemic
modals, which implicitly invoke the subject of conception, would also indicate
speakers personal responsibility. At the other end of the continuum, those expressions that refer to a collectivity (We all know, We saw, ) explicitly index shared
responsibility.
The middle ground is that of evidential expressions not designating the
speaker explicitly, which may be interpreted as invoking shared responsibility.
As Sanders and Spooren (1996:246) note, in the case of perceptual evidentials
(it seems), the commitment to the validity of the information is shared or at
least potentially shared by the speaker/listener and other participants (nonsubjective or intersubjective responsibility). Cognitive and communicative evidential expressions (That means, that suggests, ), are similarly opaque in that
they also leave open the possibility of potentially sharing the evaluation with
other participants.

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

5.3 Subjectivity/intersubjectivity
My proposal for the analysis of subjectivity/intersubjectivity considers the
interaction of the parameters salience or overtness of the role of the conceptualizer, which refers to the degree of explicitness, implicitness or opaqueness
of the presence of the conceptualizer and personal vs. shared responsibility
for the communicated information. A four-fold distinction is thus proposed
(Marn Arrese 2007, 2009):
Subjective, Explicit (SE): The speaker is the explicit point of reference, the
sole subject of the epistemic judgement or effective attitude. We find examples
in the modal and evidential domains of predicates with personal subjects which
designate the speaker as subject of conception (I saw, I think, I am convinced, I
am aware, ), and also other expressions which include explicit mention of the
speaker (For me, my judgement, ).
(47) But Im convinced EP, [[SE]] that is a hope against all evidence. As
Americans, we want peace (B-SP:184)
(48) We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me
EP, [[SE]], that means all the dangers of war. (BL-PS:201)
(49) No se vive de palabras sino de realidades y creemos y creo EP, [[SE]] que
slo afrontando con responsabilidad nuestras convicciones nos hacemos
ciertamente dignos de ellas. (A-PS:162) (One does not live on words but
on reality, and we believe and I believe EP, [[SE]] that only by facing our
convictions with responsibility can we be really worthy of them.)

Intersubjective, Explicit (IE): The speaker overtly presents the experience or evaluation as intersubjectively shared with the audience or with other specific subjects
(We have experienced,), or as universally shared (We all know,). This includes
the use of inclusive we in reference to an incompletely defined collectivity that
includes the speaker and one or more others, without specifying who they are
(Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990:745), as in the following examples.
(50) We know EP, [[IE]] that the regime has produced thousands of tons of
chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, (B-SP:144)
(51) Constatamos EP, [[IE]] que no se ha alcanzado un consenso en el Consejo
de Seguridad sobre una nueva resolucin. (A-PS: 118) (We have verified
that EP, [[IE]] a consensus has not been reached in the Security Council
about a new resolution.)

I have also included cases involving impersonal or vague uses of pronouns

(Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990), where the speakers voice and speakers responsibility is
diffuse (You would think,).

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

(52) - but written in late 1938 after Munich when by now, you would have
thought EP, [[IE]] the world was tumultuous in its desire to act.
(BL-PS:221)

Subjective, Implicit (SI): The speaker is the sole conceptualizer, the implicit subject of the epistemic judgement or effective attitude. In this category, we include
expressions which invoke the speaker/conceptualizer as the implicit point of reference. We find modal auxiliaries (may, will, must, could, should,) and modal
adverbs (certainly, perhaps,), as the following examples show.
(53) The resolution will EP, [[SI]] tell the United Nations, and all nations, that
America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of
the civilized world mean something. (B-SP:255)
(54) And there is perhaps EP, [[SI]] a lack of full understanding of US
preoccupations after 11th September. (BL-PS:283)
(55) Tambin puede EP, [[SI]] haber otras situaciones de grave amenaza para
la paz y seguridad internacionales que exigen una respuesta,(A-PS: 164)
(There may EP, [[SI]] also be other situations of dire threat to international
peace and security which call for a response, )
(56) No hacerlo implicara dejarla para ms tarde, quiz EP, [[SI]] para
demasiado tarde, y aumentar, por lo tanto, los riesgos para la seguridad
internacional. (A-PS: 166) (Not doing so would imply leaving it for later,
perhaps EP, [[SI]] until too late, and therefore increase the risks for
international security.)

Intersubjective, Opaque (IO): The role of the speaking subject is opaque; the
expressions invoke an implicit conceptualizer, which may be construed as virtual or generalized. The speaker presents the information as potentially shared
with the addressee and/or others, since the qualification is based on evidence
which is tacitly shared or potentially accessible to the interlocutor or audience. A variety of linguistic resources are found in this category: impersonal
modal predicates (It is possible, It is likely,), impersonal evidential predicates
(It seems, It is clear,), predicates with discourse deictic that as subject (That
shows, That means, That implies,), agentless passives (It was judged,), and
evidential adverbs (Obviously, Palpably,).
(57) The attacks of September the 11th showed EP, [[IO]] our country that vast
oceans no longer protect us from danger. (B-SP:274)
(58) What is perfectly clear EP, [[IO]] is that Saddam is playing the same old
games in the same old way. (BL-PS:327)
(59) , resulta esencial EF, [[IO]] reafirmar nuestro compromiso con el
vnculo atlntico porque as protegemos nuestra seguridad. (A-PS:232)

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

(It is essential EF, [[IO]] to reaffirm our compromise with the Atlantic
link because that way we protect our security.)

5.4 Subjectivity and intersubjectivity: Results and discussion

The global results for subjectivity/intersubjectivity for the three politicians are
shown in Table 4, in raw numbers and ratio per thousand words. The distribution for the expression of subjectivity/intersubjectivity in the three politicians is
significant5.
The figures for subjective, explicit markers (SE) are the lowest in the case of
Bush and Aznar. Blair has distinctively higher frequencies in this category, the
majority of which are accounted for by markers of epistemic stance which index
explicit subjectivity (SE-EP) (I know, I think, I believe, ).
Table 4. Subjectivity/intersubjectivity: Bush, Blair and Aznar
Subjectivity

S Explicit
SE-EF
SE-EP
I Explicit
IE-EF
IF-EP
S Implicit
SI-EF
SI-EP
I Opaque
IO-EF
IO-EP
TOTAL

Bush

Blair

Aznar

3,374 words

4,874 words

3,811 words

9
5
4
41
23
18
74
31
43
13
4
9
137

2.67
1.48
1.18
12.15
6.82
5.33
21.93
9.19
12.74
3.85
1.18
2.67
40.60

32
8
24
26
11
15
92
45
47
22
6
16
172

6.56
1.64
4.92
5.33
2.26
3.08
18.87
9.23
9.64
4.51
1.23
3.28
35.28

12
4
8
33
15
18
49
40
9
23
13
10
117

3.14
1.04
2.10
8.65
3.93
4.72
12.85
10.49
2.36
6.03
3.41
2.62
30.70

. There is strong evidence against the null hypothesis in both cases, on the basis of the calculation with raw numbers (Chi-square = 25.5, df:6, p 0.000), and with normalized ratio frequencies (Chi-square = 63.1021, Df: 6, p 0.000). The frequencies of markers falling into the
four outcome categories (SE, IE, SI, IO) differed significantly from the expected frequencies,
so we may safely assume that there is association between politician and choice of dimensions
of subjectivity/intersubjectivity.

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

The three speakers make most frequent use of expressions of subjectivity

which invoke the speaker/conceptualizer implicitly (SI), and which contribute to
diffuse their personal responsibility for the communicated propositions. There is,
however, a cline in the use of expressions of implicit subjectivity, with Bush at the
higher end and Aznar at the lower end. There is also a difference regarding the
correlation between implicit subjectivity and type of stance marker: in the case of
Aznar, there is a distinctive preference for implicitness in the expression of effective stance (SI-EF) (i.e. must, have to, cannot,).
As regards intersubjectivity, both Bush and Aznar exhibit a high frequency of
expressions of explicit intersubjectivity (IE), especially through the use of markers of collective responsibility (we know, we are urging,). This seems to involve a
strategy aiming to present the decision as shared by the American audience or by
other members of the Spanish Parliament.
With respect to intersubjective opaque (IO) markers, both Aznar, and to a
lesser extent Blair, show considerable ratios for this category. Aznar favours the
correlation between opaque markers and effective stance (EF-IO) (i.e. it is essential, it is urgent, it is impossible,), whereas Blair prefers opaque epistemic stance
markers (That means, That shows, It is clear,). The use of markers of opaque
intersubjectivity also contributes to present the information as implicitly shared
or potentially shared with the audience.
Figure 4 illustrates the differences in the discourse of the three politicians
(ratio per thousand words).
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

S-Explicit
I-Explicit
S-Implicit
I-Opaque
Total

Bush

Blair

Aznar

Figure 4. Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity: Bush, Blair and Aznar

These results reveal subtle variations in the use of strategies of mystification,

implicitness and the appeal to shared responsibility. Implicitness can be measured
in terms of the cumulative effect of the use of subjective implicit (SI) markers
and intersubjective opaque (IO) markers. The percentages of the use of markers

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

where the conceptualizer is implicit or where only a virtual conceptualizer is

evoked (Bush = 63%, Blair = 66.3%, Aznar = 61.5%) reveal that this is the strategy
favoured by the three politicians.
Appeal to shared responsibility can be measured by considering not only
explicit intersubjective markers (IE), but also intersubjective opaque (IO) markers. The percentages for this strategy (Bush = 39.4%, Blair = 27.9, Aznar = 47.8%)
differ, Aznar being the politician who makes greater recourse to shared responsibility. The discourse of Tony Blair is quite distinctive in this respect, his use of
intersubjective markers is relatively low. In terms of the comparison between
subjective and intersubjective markers, Blair is the speaker who is more subjectively present in his discourse if we take into account the percentage of
explicit (SE) and implicit (SI) subjective markers (Bush = 60.6%, Blair = 72.1%,
Aznar=52.1%).
The cumulative effect of the two strategies, implicitness and appeal to shared
responsibility clearly contributes to mystify the personal responsibility of Bush in
his message to the American people, and that of Blair and Aznar in the process of
decision-taking both in the English and Spanish Parliaments.
6. Conclusion
This chapter presents a model for the characterization of the speaker/writers
expression of stance and subjectivity in discourse, which reveals and accounts for
similarities and differences in interpersonal styles, as well as across the various
genres and discourses. The analysis of speaker/writers stance draws on Langackers
(2007, 2009) distinction between the effective and the epistemic level in language.
Epistemic stance pertains to the knowledge of the speaker/writer regarding the
realization of the event and/or to their estimations of the validity of the proposition
designating the event. Effective stance relates to the ways in which the speaker/
writer aims to exert control on the realization of the event, by expressing the necessity of the event occurring, or their attitudes and assessments with regard to the
event. Subjectivity has been discussed in terms of the degree of salience attached to
the role of conceptualizer or the degree to which the conceptualizer is evoked but
remains implicit (Langacker 1991, 2000, 2002). The dimension of intersubjectivity
is closely linked to the notions of personal vs. shared responsibility for the information (Nuyts 2001). In this chapter I have argued that both conceptions of subjectivity are complementary and that in order to adequately characterize the notion of
responsibility one needs to bear in mind the degree of salience or overtness of the
role of the conceptualizer.

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

The chapter has presented a corpus study on the use of linguistic resources
for the expression of effective and epistemic stance in political discourse. Political
discourse in English appears to be characterized by the extensive use of markers
of epistemic stance (We all know, We have experienced), whereas Spanish tends
to favour the use of effective stance markers (i.e. must, cannot, It is essential).
There are, however, significant differences in the interpersonal styles of George
Bush and Anthony Blair. Whereas in the discourse of Bush there is a greater balance between both stance domains, the discourse of Blair shows a clear preference
for epistemic stance. It has been argued that by the use of these stance resources
speakers manage their rhetorical goals of persuasion through the strategic functions of legitimisation and coercion (Chilton & Schaffner 1997), that is, claiming
true knowledge of the events and claiming to be morally right in the proposed
realization of events.
Stance resources are indices of speakers expression of subjectivity/intersubjectivity in discourse. The use of expressions which are indexical of the
speakers implicit subjectivity, which invoke an implicit conceptualizer, are predominant in the discourse of the three politicians. The main difference lies in
the tendency for Aznar, and to a lesser extent Bush, to invoke intersubjectively
shared assessments. In this way, the speakers manage their responsibility for
their estimations regarding knowledge of events and for their proposed realization of events, through strategies of mystification such as implicitness and the
appeal to shared responsibility.
Further research is necessary with respect to other dimensions of stance
(degree of speaker/writer commitment) in order to complete the characterization
of these discourses. There is also a need to expand the corpus, exploring other discourse domains (scientific discourse, ), genres (news reports, ), and discourse
modes (narrative discourse, ) in order to validate the model presented here.
Finally, the contrastive perspective needs to be pursued more extensively in order
to explore the possible cultural variations in the different discourse domains and
genres (Marn Arrese 2007).

References
Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benveniste, .(1966 [1958]) De la subjectivit dans le langage. Problems de Linguistique Gnrale.
Paris: Gallimard. 258266. (Orig. publ. in Journal de psychologie 55: 267f. 1958).
Bhatt, R. (2006). Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & E. Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

Brandt, P.A. (2004). Evidentiality and enunciation: A cognitive and semiotic approach. In
J.I. Marn Arrese (ed.) Perspectives on Evidentiality and Modality. Madrid: Editorial
Complutense. pp. 310.
Brown, R. & A. Gilman (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (ed.), Style
in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 253276.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & W. Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Chilton, P. & C. Schffner (1997). Discourse and politics. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as
Social Interaction. London: Sage. pp. 206230.
DuBois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 139182.
Englebretson, R. (2007). Introduction. In R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 126.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.
Finegan, E. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In D. Stein & S. Wright
(eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 115.
Fitneva, S. (2001). Epistemic marking and reliability judgements: Evidence from Bulgarian.
Journal of Pragmatics 33: 401420.
Gmez Torrego, L. (1999). Los verbos auxiliares: Las perfrasis verbales de Infinitivo. In
I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola. Madrid:
Espasa Calpe. pp. 33233390.
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action. London: Heinemann.
Hart, C. & D. Luke (eds.) (2007). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application
and Theory. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Kemmer, S. (1993). The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kitagawa, C. & A. Lehrer (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics
14: 739759.
Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R.W. (2002). Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic
Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 128.
Langacker, R.W. (2004). Aspects of the grammar of finite clauses. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer
(eds.), Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: CSLI. pp. 535577.
Langacker, R.W. (2006). Dimensions of defocusing. In T. Tsunoda and T. Kageyama (eds.), Voice
and Grammatical Relations. In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
pp. 115137.
Langacker, R.W. (2007). Control and the mind/body duality: Knowing vs. effecting. Paper presented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. University of Krakow,
1520 July.
Langacker, R.W. (2009) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 Juana I. Marn Arrese

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2002). Mystification of agency in passive, impersonal and spontaneous situation types. In J.I. Marn Arrese (ed.), Conceptualization of Events in Newspaper Discourse:
Mystification of Agency and Degree of Implication in News Reports. Madrid: Universidad
Complutense. pp. 3154.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2003). The middle domain in English and Spanish: Middle and related situation types. In C. Molina, M. Blanco, J.I. Marn Arrese, A.L. Rodrguez & M. Romano (eds.),
Cognitive Linguistics in Spain at the Turn of the Century, Vol. 1: Grammar and Semantics.
Madrid: AELCO & Universidad Autnoma de Madrid. pp. 229252.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2004). Evidential and epistemic qualifications in the discourse of fact and
opinion: A comparable corpus study. In J.I. Marn Arrese (ed.), Perspectives on Evidentiality
and Modality. Madrid: Editorial Complutense. pp. 153184.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2006). Epistemic stance and commitment in the discourse of fact and opinion in English and Spanish: A comparable corpus study. In A.M. Hornero, M.J. Luzn &
S. Murillo (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Applications for the Study of English. Berlin: Peter
Lang. pp. 141157.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2007). Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse: A contrastive case study. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures 5: 113132.
Marn Arrese, J.I. (2009). Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity/ intersubjectivity in
political discourse: A case study. In A. Tsangalidis and R. Facchinetti (eds.) Studies on
English modality. In honour of Frank R. Palmer. Berlin: Peter Lang. pp. 2352.
Marn Arrese, J.I., Hidalgo, L. & S. Molina (2004). Evidential, epistemic and deontic modality in English and Spanish: The expression of writer stance in newspaper discourse. In
R. Facchinetti & F. Palmer (eds.) English Modality in Perspective: Genre Analysis and
Contrastive Studies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. pp. 121139.
Martin, J.R.. & P.R. White (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Matlock, T. (1989). Metaphor and the grammaticalization of evidentials. In K. Hall, M. Meacham
and R. Shapiro (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. pp. 215225
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic
Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Palmer, F. (2001). Mood and Modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plungian, V. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal
of Pragmatics 33: 349357.
Ridruejo, E. (1999). Modo y modalidad: El modo en las subordinadas sustantivas. In I. Bosque &
V. Demonte (eds.), Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
pp. 32093252.
Sanders, J. (1999). Degree of subjectivity in epistemic modals and perspective representation. In
L. Stadler and C. Eyrich (eds.), Issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
pp. 471489.
Sanders, J. & W. Spooren (1996). Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of
Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (3): 241264.

Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse

de Smet, H. & JC. Verstraete (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics
17 (3): 365392.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 91112.
Traugott, E.C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein and S. Wright (eds.),
Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. pp. 3154.
Traugott, E.C. & R. Dasher (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
van der Auwera, J. and V. Plungian (1998). Modalitys semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2 (1):
79124.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.