Cover not available

In:Register and Discourse through the Lens of Corpus Linguistics
Edited by Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Dolores González-Álvarez and Esperanza Rama-Martínez
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 127] 2026
► pp. 209–240

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

Chapter 8
Concealed responsibility and implicit meaning

Nonpersonal epistemic stance presupposition triggers in UK Conservative parliamentary and newspaper opinion migration discourse

 | Universidad Complutense de Madrid
 | Universidad Complutense de Madrid
 | Universidade de Vigo
Published online: 24 March 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.127.08rom
Abstract
This chapter investigates the ways in which epistemic stance expressions (e.g., perhaps, probably, I believe, it is known, etc.) function in two registers of persuasive discourse: parliamentary debate and opinion journalism. It focuses on expressions that operate on two levels of implicitness — by concealing the epistemic source (speaker or writer) and by encoding the proposition within their scope as a presupposition. Drawing on two 60,000-word corpora — UK Conservative parliamentary debates (ANSARD) and The Telegraph opinion articles — which cover three major refugee crises and irregular immigration scenarios (2015, 2021, 2022–2023), the analysis identifies key differences in the distribution and discourse function of these expressions. Findings show that nonpersonal presupposition-triggering epistemic stance expressions are significantly more frequent in The Telegraph and in refugee discourse, where they legitimize selective support — especially for Ukrainian refugees — by constructing moral hierarchies and pre-empting dissent.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Aims, research questions, and hypotheses
  • 3.Theoretical background
    • 3.1Implicitness
    • 3.2Presupposition
    • 3.3Epistemic stance
  • 4.Methodology: Corpus design and analysis
    • 4.1Corpus description
    • 4.2Annotation method and analytic procedure
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1A general overview of the use of nonpersonal epistemic expressions functioning as presupposition triggers
    • 5.2Nonpersonal epistemic expressions functioning as presupposition triggers in UK conservative newspaper opinion discourse
    • 5.3Nonpersonal epistemic expressions functioning as presupposition triggers in UK Conservative parliamentary discourse
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (60)
References
AnderBois, S., Brasoveanu, A., & Henderson, R. (2010). Crossing the appositive / at-issue meaning boundary. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20 (pp. 328–346). CLC Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ANSARD. See Hansard. (n.d.). UK Parliament: Official report of debates. Retrieved on 6 December 2025 from [URL]
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 223–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (Eds.). (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Grammar of spoken and written English. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, K. (2012). Epistemic meaning: A cross-linguistic and functional-cognitive study. Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Propositions and states of affairs: A cognitive linguistic approach. In J. M. Hartmann & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie / Propositional arguments in cross-linguistic research: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 85–114). Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carretero, M. (2014). Semántica y pragmática del inglés / English semantics and pragmatics. Basic theoretical contents and exercises. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Knowledge and belief in the times of COVID-19: A comparative analysis of epistemicity in English newspaper discourse of two stages of the pandemic. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 3(2), 100054. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carretero, M., & Domínguez Romero, E. (Submitted). Criteria for annotating epistemic and effective stance: A proposal for discourse on irregular immigration and humanitarian crises involving refugees. Intercultural Pragmatics.
Carretero, M., Marín-Arrese, J. I., & Lavid-López, J. (2017). Adverbs as evidentials: An English-Spanish contrastive analysis of twelve adverbs in spoken and newspaper discourse. Kalbotyra, 70, 32–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chauvin, S., & Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2014). Becoming less illegal: Deservingness frames and undocumented migrant incorporation. Sociology Compass, 8(4), 422–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. ([2010]2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1982). Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language, 6(1), 23–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (1998). Interpersonal foundations of conversational indirectness. In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 71–89). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(2), 196–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1991). Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t. Journal of Pragmatics, 15(4), 313–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 143–173). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E. (2016). The “exaptation” of linguistic implicit strategies. SpringerPlus, 5, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Manipulative shallow processing induced by presuppositions and topics: Theoretical perspectives and experimental evidence. Frontiers in Communication, 6, Article 631486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E., & Masia, V. (2014). Implicitness impact: Measuring texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 161–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2023). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction (2nd ed.). Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, J. I. (2011). Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. In C. Hart (Ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition (pp. 193–224). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Stancetaking and inter-subjectivity in the Iraq inquiry: Blair vs. Brown. In J. I. Marín-Arrese, M. Carretero, J. Arús Hita, & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality (pp. 411–445). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021a). Stance, emotion and persuasion: Terrorism and the press. Journal of Pragmatics, 177, 135–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021b). Winds of war: Epistemic and effective control in political discourse. Cultura, lenguaje y representación / Culture, Language and Representation, 26, 289–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Epistemic and effective stance and the expression of inter/subjectivity. In J. I. Marín-Arrese, L. Hidalgo-Downing, & J. R. Zamorano-Mansilla (Eds.), Stance, inter/subjectivity and identity in discourse (pp. 29–56). Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantics (2nd ed., pp. 168–202). Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2011). A relevance-theoretic account of the evolution of implicit communication. Studies in Pragmatics, 13, 1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sainsbury, D. (2012). Welfare states and immigrant rights: The politics of inclusion and exclusion. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5–6), 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The Telegraph. (n.d.). News and commentary on UK and world affairs. [URL]
Thomason, R. H. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 325–363). The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, W. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28(1), 33–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 23–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhoeven, E., & Lehmann, N. (2018). Self-embedding and complexity in oral registers. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiemer, B., & Stathi, K. (2010). The database of evidential markers in European languages. A bird’s eye view of the conception of the database (the template and problems hidden beneath it). STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 63(4), 275–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue