Constructions of Intersubjectivity

Verhagen, Arie

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226702.001.0001

Cited by 74 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Depending on its local context and distribution across discourse domains and contexts, I think may not only attenuate but also boost the pragmatic force of an utterance, expressing possibility and probability on the one hand, and certainty on the other (Fetzer 2008;SimonVandenbergen 2000). More recently, its dialogic function has been in the focus of investigation, and I think has been assigned the status of a construction of intersubjectivity (Verhagen 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

I think,I meanandI believein political discourse

Fetzer

2014

FOL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the distribution, collocates and function of the first-personsingular cognitive-verb-based syntagmatic configurations I think, I mean and I believe in argumentative political discourse, considering their status as parenthetical construction and pragmatic marker in two sets of spoken data: monologic speech and dialogic interview. Its goal is to identify discourse-domain-specific discourse patterns, which manifest themselves in patterned co-occurrences with other pragmatic markers, and with expressions of modality and evidentiality. The explicit accommodation of local context allows for a fine-grained analysis of the three constructions, filtering out those contextual configurations in which I think, I mean and I believe may count as a pragmatic marker.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

I think,I meanandI believein political discourse

Fetzer

2014

FOL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The German challenges contain fewer cognitive and conversation ' (1975). A more dynamic, cognitive-grammar anchored analysis of negation is provided by Verhagen (2005), assigning it the status of a construction of intersubjectivity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in contrast

Fetzer

2009

LiC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Challenges express the speaker's intention not to comply with a proposition, force or presupposition communicated in and through a prior conversational contribution. This may be a directly adjacent contribution, some less directly adjacent contribution, or a conversational contribution uttered in some prior discourse. As for its sequential status, a challenge is a responsive contribution, and from an interpersonal perspective, it tends to carry a high degree of face-threatening potential. A felicitous analysis of a challenge thus needs to go beyond a single conversational contribution, not only accommodating context but also the nature of a challenge's embeddedness in context. The contribution is organized as follows: The first section systematizes the necessary and sufficient contextual constraints and requirements for a conversational contribution to be assigned the status of a challenge. The second part argues for a challenge to be conceptualized as a particularized contextual configuration, which may serve as a tertium comparationis in contrastive pragmatics. The third section exemplifies the frame of reference with a contrastive analysis of British and German challenges adopted from a corpus of political interviews. In both sets of data, challenges tend to be realized implicitly, and in both sets, challenging the content of a contribution is more frequent than challenging its force or presuppositions. While the British data display a wider variety of challenges, the German data prefer the content-based, implicitly realized challenge.

show abstract

“…According to Halliday, I think can be replaced by in my opinion or probably, which provides additional evidence that the meaning of the verb is not part of the propositional content of the clause. Nuyts (2001) and Verhagen (2005) have shown that this distinction between a representational use and a non-representational/modal use of cognition verbs with first-person subjects in the simple present can be extended to third-person subjects as well. After all, the expression in my opinion has a third-person counterpart: in his opinion.…”

Section: Qualificational Uses Versus Representational Usesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Verhagen (2005) states that the primary use of complementation structures is to serve the speaker's argumentation rather than to describe an event or state of affairs. He shows that generally it is the content of the complement clause that is argumentationally relevant rather than the matrix clause.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speaker involvement through cognition verbs in Spanish

Saeger

2008

BJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on the results of a corpus-based investigation of the functions of the "cognition verb + que-clause" complementation structure in Spanish. We will show that the interpretation of this pattern depends on the choice between subject and speaker perspective, and on the use made of both perspectives in descriptive and argumentative contexts. These two axes, perspective and use, determine the involvement of the speaker in the propositional content of the complement clause. Various configurations of speaker involvement can thus be identified.

show abstract

Constructions of Intersubjectivity

Cited by 74 publications

References 12 publications

I think,I meanandI believein political discourse

I think,I meanandI believein political discourse

Challenges in contrast

Speaker involvement through cognition verbs in Spanish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About