Cover not available

In:Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives
Edited by Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Gerda Haßler and Marta Carretero
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 271] 2017
► pp. 249–269

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 10
Be likely to and be expected to, epistemic modality or evidentiality?

Markers of (non)commitment in newspaper discourse

 | University of Nantes
Published online: 21 March 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271.11bes
Abstract
This paper deals with the contribution of Be likely to and be expected to to the expression of point of view in newspaper discourse. On the basis of a unified and contextualized account of those structures’ operating modes, it is argued that they both have modal and evidential values – a combination which, by allowing the speaker to express an opinion while distancing him/herself from it, might explain their extensive use in journalistic texts. Yet, it is also shown that each marker has specific characteristics which, on the one hand, entail different contextual constraints that partly explain their coexistence as well as their diverging uses – especially when other markers of modality or reported speech are involved – and, on the other hand, inform the speaker’s choices depending on his/her level of commitment to the evaluation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical preliminaries
    • 2.1Theoretical framework
    • 2.2Key concepts
      • 2.2.1Point of view
      • 2.2.2Modality and evidentiality
      • 2.2.3Commitment
  • 3.Syntactic and semantic description of the two structures
    • 3.1Classification of the structures
      • 3.1.1 be likely to and auxiliarization
      • 3.1.2 be expected to and passivation
    • 3.2Semantics of the structures
      • 3.2.1General overview: epistemic modality and other modal values of the core markers
      • 3.2.2 Likely and appearance
      • 3.2.3 Expect and subjective projection
  • 4.Contextual constraints: modal compatibility
    • 4.1Syntactic distribution
    • 4.2 Can and might: uses restricted to be expected to
      • 4.2.1 Can and property attribution
      • 4.2.2 Might and epistemic judgement
    • 4.3 Will: projection into the future and redefinition of modal values
    • 4.4Summary
  • 5.Commitment and non-commitment in newspaper discourse
    • 5.1 Be likely to and commitment
    • 5.2 Be expected to and non-commitment
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (23)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2004. “The Semantic Path from Modality to Aspect: Be Able to in a Cross Linguistic Perspective.” In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, ed. by Hans Lindquist, and Christian Mair, 57–78. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouscaren, Janine. 1993. Linguistique Anglaise: Initiation à une grammaire de l’énonciation. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. (this volume). “Exploring Evidential Uses of the Passive of Reporting Verbs through Corpus Analysis.”
Celle, Agnès. 2008. “Tense, Modality and Commitment in Modes of Mixed Enunciation.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 15–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chuquet, Jean. 1986. To et l’Infinitif Anglais. Numéro spécial. Cahiers de Recherche en Linguistique Anglaise. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chuquet, Jean, Eric Gilbert, and Hélène Chuquet. 2010. “English Definitions of Key Terms in the Theory of Enunciative Operations.” SIL International. <[URL]> (22 February 2015)
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culioli, Antoine. 1990. Pour une Linguistique de l’Enonciation. Tome 1. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delesse, Catherine. 2006. “Les Structures du Type ‘X is said to/reported to V…’ : Discours rapporté ou modalité épistémique?” In Discours Rapporté(s): Approche(s) Linguistique(s) et/ou Traductologique(s), ed. by Catherine Delesse, 53–73. Arras: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dendale, Patrick, and Liliane Tasmowski. 2001. “Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (3): 339–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis, and Lev Michael. 2012. “Evidentials and Evidential Strategies in Interactional and Socio-cultural Context.” Pragmatics and Society 3 (2): 270–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 2015. Oxford University Press. <[URL]> (22 February 2015).
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries. 2015. Oxford University Press. <[URL]> (22 February 2015)
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rabatel, Alain. 2009. “A Brief Introduction to an Enunciative Approach to Point of View.” In Point of View, Perspective, and Focalization: Modeling Mediation in Narrative, ed. by Peter Hühn, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert, 79–98. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richardson, John E. 2007. Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivière, Claude. 1983. “Modal Adjectives: Transformations, Synonymy, and Complementation.” Lingua 59: 1–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stenvall, Maija. 2008. “On Emotions and the Journalistic Ideals of Factuality and Objectivity: Tools for analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1569–1586. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. 2004. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Furmaniak, Grégory
2019. Sur les spécificités discursives de (be) likely. Lexis :15 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue