Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse.

A contrastive case study

Juana I. Marn Arrese
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Abstract The introduction of a particular stance or enunciational position in the discourse reflects the viewpoint of the speaker/conceptualizer concerning the described situation and the communicated proposition. Linguistic resources for the expression of shifts in enunciational position include modal and evidential expressions. In addition to their contentful meaning, modals and evidentials are indexical of the speaker/writer's subjective and intersubjective positioning, that is, they evoke the speaker's active consciousness. This paper presents results of a case study on the use of these linguistic resources by the British Prime Minister Anthony Blair, and by the Spanish President of Government, Jos Luis Rodrguez Zapatero in two distinct types of communicative events: parliamentary statement and political speech. The paper presents a model for the characterization of speaker/writer's interpersonal style in discourse. The case study aims to reveal similarities and differences in the expression of stance and subjectivity in the political discourse of the two speakers. Results indicate significant differences in the domain of stance, but no significant differences in the domain of subjectivity/intersubjectivity.

Introduction

The various enunciational positions of the speaker/writer reflect his or her attitudes, assessments and value judgements concerning the described situation, that is, the speaker/writer's stance (Biber et al. 1999). Brandt (2004) observes that the speaker's basic unmarked enunciational position, the here and now speech act may shift in order to reflect an experiential position (I saw X), an epistemic position (I know X), or a position of aphony, by which the speaker explicitly refrains from investing in the utterance (I am not saying that X...). Finally, the basic position may also shift to a position of polyphony whereby other text external voices are introduced. His model brings together distinctions pertaining to the perspective of the speaker, or of some other text external voice, and distinctions pertaining to the stance that the speaker/writer adopts. Drawing on this proposal, I elaborate a framework which allows for finer-grained distinctions in the account of speaker/writer's enunciational stance, and which systematically relates stance choices with differing degrees of subjectivity/intersubjectivity (Marn Arrese 2006). Linguistic resources for the expression of shifts in enunciational stance include modal and evidential expressions. From a dialogistic perspective, the use of these resources also reflect a speaker/writer's interpersonal style and his/her rhetorical strategies (Martin and White 2005). In this respect, White (2003: 260) has convincingly argued that the use of

114

Juana I. Marn Arrese

these wordings also involve interactional meanings between speaker/writer and actual or potential interactants: the textual voice acts first-and-foremost to acknowledge, to engage with or to align itself with respect to positions which are in some way alternatives to that being advanced by the text. In addition to their contentful meaning, these expressions are indexical of the speaker/writer's subjective and intersubjective construal, that is, they evoke the speaker's active consciousness. Subjectivity has been characterized by Langacker (1991, 2002) as the extent to which information is implicitly grounded in the perspective of the speaker as subject of conception. 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 or whether the assessment is potentially shared by others. On the basis of these notions, my own proposal considers the interaction of two parameters: degree of salience and explicitness of the role of the conceptualizer, and personal vs. shared responsibility. This paper presents results of a case study on the use of these linguistic resources in political discourse in English and Spanish. The corpus of texts analyzed include political speeches on the topic of Education and parliamentary statements on the war in Iraq by the British Prime Minister, Anthony Blair, and by the Spanish President of Government, Jos Luis Rodrguez Zapatero. The discoursal events are similar in terms of discourse domains or orders of discourse (political discourse), genre and activity type1 (monologic parliamentary statement, political speech), participant roles and social relations (PM, PG), discourse type (argumentation), and personal rhetorical goals (persuasion). The paper presents a model for the characterization of speaker/writer's interpersonal style in discourse. In this case study, however, the caveat must be made that these parliamentary statements and political speeches are not simply the results of a single conceptualizing mind, but the collegiate effort of the assessors of the PM and the President of Government respectively. Though no claims can be made regarding intercultural differences on the basis of the corpus used in this case study, it will be argued 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 et al. 2004). More specifically, the paper has the following aims: (i) To characterize the presence and patterning of the expression of stance in the different genres and subgenres by identifying, classifying and quantifying the various linguistic resources used; (ii) To reveal the role of these linguistic resources as indices of differing degrees of subjectivity and intersubjectivity; (iii) To establish comparisons of the similarities and differences in the use of these resources in relation to the two types of communicative events, and across languages/cultures. It is hypothesized that the communicative event in which the speakers engage, their roles and their personal goals, the cultural underpinnings in their discourse practices, as well as their choices in construal, will be reflected in their enunciational stance and their expression of subjectivity/intersubjectivity. These choices will be crucial in shaping texts and discourses. In their parliamentary statements the PM and the President of Government will
1

Levinson (1979: 368) characterizes activity types as goal-defined, socially constituted, bounded events with constraints on participants, settings, and so on, but above all on the kinds of allowable contributions.

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse

115

display rhetorical strategies of persuasion, among them the appeal to shared knowledge and attitudes with respect to Iraq. In their political speeches on Education, their main concern will be that of underscoring their personal commitment to the validity of their statements. The criteria for the categories of enunciational stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity, and the linguistic resources for the expression of these notions, are presented in Section 2. The corpus study is described in section 3. The results of the corpus study are discussed in section 4, and the conclusions are provided in the final section.

Enunciational stance and subjectivity

2.1 Enunciational stance Brandt (2004: 6-7) relates perspective to the speaker or enunciator role, and proposes a model of the organization of enunciation on the basis of the various mental space delegations or conceptual perspectives that the speaker/writer may adopt. In his/her enunciator role, the speaker/writer may focus, and direct the hearer's attention, to the present enunciation, the here-and-now speech act, which is the basic, deictic, enunciational position, involving the zero point of delegation (I have to say that...). Alternatively, the speaker may adopt a position of experiential subjectivization whereby the utterance is anchored in the outer world of the subject of conception (I see that...; I remember that...; I fear that...), or an epistemic position which pertains to the mental domain of the subject (I know that..., I conclude that ...), and is presumably more logical and objective. The speaker may also adopt other types of delegation: a polyphonic enunciational position (As X said...; They believe that...), by which the speaker's voice reproduces directly or indirectly another person's or an institutions' voice or thought but also positively or negatively reflects the speaker's own attitude as in magister dixit quotes or ironic statements (Brandt 2004: 6). Polyphonic utterances, according to Brandt (2004: 6) also include deontic expressions since typically there is an alien voice behind the speaker's in such indications (We must make sure that X...). Finally, the speaker may adopt a position of aphony, whereby s/he emphatically withdraws or refrains from investing in the utterance (I am not saying that X) (Brandt 2004: 7). This includes the use of negation, as well as counterfactual expressions and conditionals (let us imagine that ..., if it were the case that ...). The main methodological problem regarding this proposal is that it represents speaker/writer's enunciational position by collapsing the notions of perspective, stance and subjectivity. The association of the experiential position with subjectivity, and that of the epistemic position with objectivity is based on an apriori association of subjectivity with the domain of emotion, and objectivity with the domain of reasoning, which is not necessarily warranted by the linguistic data. Drawing on these notions, and on my own work on modality and evidentiality (Marn Arrese 2004, 2006), in this paper I therefore present an alternative proposal for the study of enunciational stance (Brandt 2004) which integrates various aspects of stance and engagement (Biber et al. 1999; Martin and White 2005). Within enunciational stance, the following subcategories are distinguished: (i) Communicative stance This category includes cases where the speaker directs hearer's attention to her/his enunciation by means of the performative use of verbs of communication (I say..., Let me tell..., Let me explain..., We must demand...). Also included are examples of self-reference to previous acts of communication or self-attribution (As I said..., We said...).

116 (1)

Juana I. Marn Arrese (B-PS)2: That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, ...

As in the other categories, I have included examples of what might be termed indirect access to the information (cf. Plungian 2001). These are examples which involve meaning-shifts from the domain of verbal communication to the domains of knowledge and belief (i.e. CONCLUDING IS SUGGESTING) (That suggests, That implies, ...). It is of course arguable whether one should include these examples within the category epistemic stance, since they designate cognitive conclusional processes. However, the mental process is conceptualized in terms of an act of communication. The categories of enunciational stance in this paper reflect what aspect is emphasized in the acquisition of the information (Fitneva 2001), and/or how the speaker/writer conceptualizes his/her access to the information, including cases of metaphorical meaning shifts (Marn Arrese 2006). In Spanish we find similar verbal expressions, very often involving a complex construction with the modal attitudinal verb quiero (want) or the root modal poder (can): Quiero decir /expresar /informar /referirme /reiterar /... (I want to say /express /inform /refer /reiterate /...), Puedo confirmar...(I can confirm...). Examples of self-attribution are also found in Spanish: Les deca (I was telling you/I said to you)..., anunci (I announced). (2) (RZ-PS): ... conforme me traslada el Ministro de Defensa, puedo confirmar que hoy, 27 de abril, a las diecisis horas, ya no permanece en el territorio de Iraq ningn componente espaol de la Brigada Plus Ultra II. (... as the Minister of Defence informs me, I can confirm that ...) (3) (RZ-PS): Ese mismo da, en comparecencia pblica, anunci mi propsito de solicitar de inmediato la convocatoria urgente del Pleno de la Cmara... (That same day,..., I announced my intention ...) (ii) Experiential stance This category includes evidential markers that designate the perceptual source of evidence, indicating that the speaker has direct personal sensory access to the information (I overheard..., I noticed..., I saw...), or that the evidence is perceptually available to her/himself and (potentially) also to the addressee/reader (We can see...). (4) (B-PSp): So, when I see the superb work being achieved at this Academy, I believe we should ...

Indirect perceptual markers evoke the perceptual aspect in the inferential process of the acquisition of information. As Fitneva (2001) points out,
Perceptual information is processed and moulded in the mind, so there is some cognitive or inferential process involved. Conversely, inferential information starts with a perceptual stimulus. A better way to think about the linguistic markers for source of information is that they emphasize an aspect of the acquisition of the information. There is a fuzzy boundary between perception and cognition that might or might not be codified in language.
2

The labels used for the texts are the following: B-PSp: Blair, Political speech RZ-PSp: Rodrguez Zapatero, Political speech B-PS: Blair, Parliamentary statement RZ-PS: Rodrguez Zapatero, Parliamentary statement

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse

117

Indirect markers refer to inferential processes 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 indicates..., It looks like..., It seems..., That shows..., That reflects...); predicative adjectives (It is apparent..., It was clear..., It was palpable...), adverbs (Obviously..., Seemingly...), and nominals (There was an indication...). All these markers also reflect varying degrees of commitment of the speaker/writer regarding the evidentiary validity of the information proffered (cf. Marn Arrese 2004, 2006), which may be exploited for rhetorical purposes in political discourse. There are certain expressions such as I see that ..., I find that..., I feel that ..., which evoke a direct perceptual source of evidence, but refer to a cognitive process. As Matlock (1989: 216) notes, the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING motivates and structures these meaningshifts from visual perception to speaker/writer's inference, on the basis of speaker's deduction based on the perception of the end results of an event. Other such structuring metaphors are: BELIEVING IS FEELING, BELIEVING IS FINDING. In Spanish we also find metaphorical expressions involving bodily experience of physical actions, and the domain of life to express perception: ha puesto encima de la mesa (has placed on top of the table), vivamos (we lived/experienced). (5) (RZ-PSp): ...el sector pblico y el sector empresarial, y la favorable acogida de los mismos ha puesto encima de la mesa la necesidad de actuar en esta direccin. (... the public sector and the sector of private companies, and the favourable welcome they have given has placed on top of the table the necessity to act in this direction.) Expressions in Spanish similarly include verbal and non-verbal markers of direct and indirect access to the evidence. Verbal markers of experiential stance include: apreciar (appreciate), indicar (indicate), parecer (seem), percibir (perceive), ver (see), poner de manifiesto (make evident/manifest). Non-verbal markers include: al parecer (seemingly), aparentemente (apparently), obviamente (obviously), claro (clear), claramente (clearly), evidente (evident), evidentemente (evidently), obvio (obvious), (dar) la impresin (give the impression), (ser) la mejor demostracin (be the best demonstration/proof). (6) (RZ-PSp): ... porque es el camino para llegar --lo hemos visto bien en estos veinticinco aos-- a esa extensin de la educacin universitaria. (...-- we have seen it well in these twenty-five years-- ...) (7) (RZ-PS): La experiencia de los ltimos quince aos indica que la participacin de nuestras Fuerzas Armadas en operaciones en el exterior ha respondido a... (The experience of the last fifteen years indicates that ...) (iii) Attitudinal stance This category comprises the use of attitudinal predicates (I hope..., I fear..., I want,...) and predicative adjectives (I was concerned that ..., I was worried that...), and relational constructions involving nominals (there was concern...). This category also involves speaker/writer's expression of judgements regarding necessity, possibility or desirability of a particular situation, by means of root modals expressing necessity (obligation), possibility (permission), and modals expressing volition (intention).

118 (8)

Juana I. Marn Arrese (B-PSp): The big change in the White Paper is that we want to build on the success of specialist schools and academies not because I want to pick another fight for the sake of it, ... (B-PSp): Of course such a system must have rules to ensure fair funding and fair admissions, ...

(9)

(10) (B-PS): I will not be party to such a course. 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. Intentions are typically designated by future tense and verbal periphrasis ir a (going to) + infinitive. Non-verbal markers include predicative adjectives and nominals followed either by an infinitive, es preciso tener en cuenta (it is necessary to bear in mind), or by a finite clause in the subjunctive, es necesario que recordemos (it is necessary for us to remember/we should remember), and nominal periphrasis, (el) deber de (the duty of), (la) necesidad de (the necessity of) (Gmez Torrego 1999; Ridruejo 1999). Attitudinal expressions found in the Spanish corpus include: esperemos (let us hope), pretendemos (we pretend), queremos (we want), es conveniente (it is convenient), no se puede (one cannot), tenemos que (we have to), hace falta (there is need/it is necessary), hay que (one has to), he de (I have to), requiere (requires), es una obligacin de todos (it is everybody's obligation), es nuestro propsito (it is our intention), vamos a (we are going to). (11) (RZ-PS): Me basta con hacer una afirmacin rotunda: no debimos ir a Iraq y, por ello, debamos volver cuanto antes. (... we shouldn't have gone to Iraq and, therefore, we had to come back as soon as possible.) (12) (RZ-PSp): De la misma manera, tambin es un buen da para decir, porque no podemos hablar de investigacin, de universidad y de futuro sin hablar de las empresas,... (..., because we cannot speak of research, of the university and of the future without speaking of the companies ...). (13) (RZ-PSp): El protagonismo que corresponde a las capacidades de nuestros universitarios, ..., que se ha puesto de manifiesto en este Informe, vamos a abordarlo de manera compartida, ... sabiendo que en el mundo de la globalizacin no hay tiempo que perder, no hay un solo proyecto que dejar atrs, ... (The prominent role that corresponds to the capacities of our university students, ..., which has become manifest in this report, we are going to tackle it together, ... knowing that in the world of globalization there is no time to lose, there is no project to leave behind, ...) (iv) Epistemic stance This category pertains to the mental world of the speaker/writer, and involves the use of cognitive evidentials (I know..., I conclude..., I understand...,). Again we find lexical predicates (believe, consider, doubt, expect, forget, imagine, know, predict, realise, reckon, remember, suppose, suspect, think, understand), adverbials (doubtless, without doubt), and relational and existential

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse

119

constructions involving nominals (My guess was..., There was no doubt in my mind..., My belief..., My recollection..., My understanding..., I had suspicions...). (14) (B-PSp): So, when I see the superb work being achieved at this Academy, I believe we should also take the opportunity to celebrate a growing and increasingly ... Indirect evidential markers indicate access to the information as a result of inferential or conclusional processes. These markers include lexical verbs (I assume..., I conclude..., That means...), relational constructions (The assumption was...), and adverbials (presumably). Cognitive evidentials in Spanish also include direct markers: Creo (I believe/think), considero (I consider), estoy convencido (I am convinced), and indirect markers: Desprenderse (deduce), deducirse (deduce), significar (mean), llevar a la conclusin (reach the conclusion). Other expressions found in the corpus include: como saben (as you know), se prev (it is foreseen/anticipated), es previsible (it is foreseeable), seguramente (surely), dudoso (doubtful), sin duda alguna (without any doubt), no cabe duda (there is no doubt), indudablemente (undoubtedly), supuestamente (supposedly), por supuesto (certainly). (15) (RZ-PSp): Tengo el absoluto convencimiento, y estoy convencido de que la Presidenta est de acuerdo en esta segunda aportacin,... (I have the absolute conviction and I am convinced that the President agrees ...) The epistemic domain also includes markers of epistemic modality, which concerns speaker's assessment of the communicated proposition and encodes different degrees of certainty regarding its truth (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998; Palmer 2001 among others): necessity (must, cannot); probability (will, would, should); possibility (may, could). I have also included predicative adjectives in expressions which either explicitly or implicitly invoke the subject of conception (I was certain ..., I was sure..., It was likely...,...). (16) (B-PS): The tragedy is that had such a Resolution issued, he might just have complied. 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...), puede ser ..., pudiera ser... (it may be..., 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) and conditional (*ra/ran); epistemic qualifications are also associated with the future perfect marker (habr/n+PP). Non-verbal markers include adverbs and adverbial expressions: Acaso (is it the case that?), ciertamente (certainly/truly), desde luego (of course), faltara ms (certainly), probablemente (probably), quiz/quizs (perhaps), seguramente (surely), tal vez (maybe); adjectives: Cierto (certain), improbable (improbable), posible (possible), probable (probable), seguro (sure); and nominals: la certeza (the certainty), la seguridad (the security) (Gmez Torrego 1999; Ridruejo 1999). (17) (RZ-PS): ... sin abrir un periodo de incertidumbre e inestabilidad que se poda haber prolongado durante varios das y que habra puesto en riesgo adicional a nuestras tropas.

120

Juana I. Marn Arrese (... that might have been prolonged for several days and which would have placed our troops in additional risk ...) (18) (RZ-PSp):...nuestra plena incorporacin al Espacio Europeo de Educacin Superior que, sin duda, abrir nuevas oportunidades formativas y de empleo a nuestros jvenes. (... which, no doubt, will provide new opportunities ...)

(v) Aphonic stance According to Brandt (2004), an enunciative position of aphony is one by which the speaker disavows or refrains from investing in the communicated proposition. It is typically characterised by the use of negation as a form of avoidance or non-committal. Negation has been viewed as an instruction to the hearer to discard the information from his/her mental representation and replace it with the corresponding opposite (Kaup 2001). However, as Giora (2006: 8) notes, information within the scope of negation is often accessible and retained in the minds of comprehenders for the purposes of relevance and coherence maintenance, and it is suppressed and disposed of when it is deemed useless or irrelevant. From a dialogistic position, negation invokes the opposite affirmative, and the speaker presents him/herself as responding to those claims or beliefs (Martin and White 2005). By the use of this resource, the speaker/writer indicates disalignment with the views and the potential positions of others, very often providing additional evidence in support of their denial. Within this category, we find examples from the experiential, cognitive and communicative domains (I did not see..., I do not know..., I did not say...). Most of the examples are instances where reference to the speaker is explicit, though sometimes negation is combined with collective reference and impersonal or vague uses of pronouns (You never know..., You are never sure....). (19) (B-PSp): Now I am not nave enough to believe that we will ever achieve a situation where wealth does not matter in schooling. (20) (RZ-PS): No pretendo, Seoras, en esta intervencin hacer un balance de lo que ha ido ocurriendo durante este largo ao... (I do not pretend, ...) Additional contexts favouring an aphonic stance are questions, conditionals and other linguistic resources designating hypothetical or counterfactual states of affairs. (21) (B-PS): And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? 2.2 Subjectivity and intersubjectivity Subjectivity has been characterized by Langacker (1991) as the extent to which the information is implicitly grounded in the perspective of the speaker. Langacker's notion of subjectivity is explained drawing on perceptual notions. In a situation of optimal viewing arrangement, the viewer or subject of conception remains offstage, thus being implicit and

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse

121

construed with maximal subjectivity, whereas the entity which functions as object of conception is put onstage and is thus salient and objectively construed. 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 designated, in expressions such as I have to say, I saw or I suppose, the speaker is objectified since in addition to the role of conceptualizer, s/he is also part of the object of conceptualization. For Sanders and Spooren (1996), however, degree of subjectivity is best viewed in terms of the degree to which the speaker's active consciousness is foregrounded (high subjectivity: I think; semisubjective: may, must; nonsubjective: It appears). Sanders (1999) observes that though the conceptualizer is objectified in these evidential expressions, at the same time they also maximally foreground the conceptualizer's estimations of the validity of the information, so that what is expressed by the communicated proposition is in effect maximally subjectified. 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 speaker's active consciousness is also evoked, so that what is expressed by the sentence is subjectified, though to a lesser extent. There are certain perceptual and cognitive evidentials (it seems, that means) where the presence of the speaking subject is opaque; there is 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. With these inferential evidentials, the speaker's active consciousness is further backgrounded, and the conceptualization seems to be more objectively construed than in the case of modals. Drawing on these notions, a continuum may be identified in the dimension of subjectivity in terms of the parameter salience or overtness of the role of the conceptualizer, ranging from cases where the conceptualizer is part of the object of conceptualization and is thus encoded as the explicit source of the evaluation, to those where the conceptualizer is implicit and non-salient, and those where the role of the current speaker as source of the evaluation is opaque (Marn-Arrese 2006): Explicit I think ... Implicit That may ... Opaque It seems ...

Figure 1 Salience of the role of conceptualizer An additional dimension of subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity concerns 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) (Nuyts 2001), as indicated in figure 2. Personal I think ... Opaque It seems ... Figure 2 Personal vs. shared responsibility Shared We know

122

Juana I. Marn Arrese

Epistemic modals, which implicitly invoke the subject of conception, would indicate speakers personal responsibility. 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. These predicates defocus the mental activity of any particular conceptualizer, by evoking it only in a generalized fashion (Langacker 2004: 568). This amounts to evoking the conceptualizer as a virtual entity (Langacker 2004: 568). It follows that a particular conceptualizer (the speaker/writer) might identify with the implied virtual conceptualizer, thus licensing the explicit mention of the speaker/writer, at least periphrastically. However, not all forms of expansion are equally appropriate, so that one could argue that these modal impersonal predicates seem to partly share this particular property of grounding elements: (22) a. {In my view/As I see it/*For me,} This solution may be the best way forward for the peace process ... b. {In my view/As I see it/?For me,} It is possible that the United States will behave in a wiser manner... In the case of impersonal modal adverbs, the virtual conceptualizer evoked by the adverb tends to be identified in discourse with an external one, by default the actual speaker (Langacker 2004: 573). Evidential expressions not designating the speaker explicitly may be interpreted as evoking 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 (non-subjective or intersubjective responsibility). Cognitive and communicative evidential expressions (that means, that suggests), are similarly opaque in that though they seem to indicate that the speaker is responsible for the evaluation, they also leave open the possibility of potentially sharing the evaluation with other participants. 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. (23) a. It seems to me..., It sounds to me like ..., It is clear to me that .... b. {In my view/As I see it/For me,} that means America should first persuade ... 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 information. A four-fold distinction is thus made (Marn-Arrese 2006):

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse (i) Explicit personal responsibility

123

The current speaker is overtly the sole source of the evaluation. We find examples in the various evidential domains where reference is explicitly made to the speaker as subject of conception, by means of predicates with personal subjects. Evidential predicates: I saw, I think, I would say, It seems to me,... Modal or evidential adjectives: I am sure, I am aware, ... Other evidential expressions: My guess is, My understanding was,... (24) (B-PSp): This year, I gather your 590 students also include 50 sixth formers for the first time. (ii) Explicit shared responsibility The speaker overtly presents the evaluation as explicitly shared with the interlocutor (As you can see...), or with other subjects (We felt...), or as universally shared (We all know..., Everyone knows...). 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 and Lehrer 1990: 745). We find examples of predicates with personal subjects in the domains of perceptual, cognitive and communicative evidentiality. Evidential predicates: We said, We all know, As you can see, It seemed to us,.. Modal or evidential adjectives: We are sure, We are clear, ... Other evidential expressions: Our perception/view was, ... (25) (B-PS): But the only relevant point of analogy is that with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say: there's the time; that was the moment. I have also included cases involving impersonal or vague uses of pronouns (Kitagawa and Lehrer 1990), where the speaker's voice and speaker's responsibility is diffuse (You would think..., Anyone knows...). Also included are cases of collective reference, or other forms of assimilation (Van Leeuwen 1996). (26) (B-PS): ... when by now, you would have thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act. (iii) Implicit personal responsibility The speaker functions as the sole conceptualizer, the implicit subject of consciousness. We find modal auxiliaries, impersonal modal predicates, and modal adverbs. Modal auxiliaries: May, will, must, could, should,... Modal adjectives and adverbs: It is possible, It is likely, perhaps,... Other modal expressions: There was a possibility.... (27) (B-PSp): The ethos guiding Academies and the best specialist and foundation schools should be one that every school can aim for. (iv) Opaque personal/shared responsibility The presence of the speaking subject is opaque; the implicit conceptualizer may be the speaker, or what is evoked is a virtual conceptualizer, since the qualification is based on evidence which is tacitly shared with others or potentially accessible to the interlocutor or

124

Juana I. Marn Arrese

audience. A variety of linguistic resources are found in this case: impersonal evidential predicates, predicates with discourse deictic that as subject, agentless passives, existential presentatives, and non-verbal elements. Evidential predicates: It seems, It sounds like, That shows, That means, That suggests, It was judged, Evidential adjectives and adverbs: It is clear, It is palpable, Obviously,... Other evidential expressions: There was a sense, There was a feeling, That carried the suggestion, ... (28) (B-PS): What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way.

The Corpus Study

(B-PSp): Anthony Blair, Speech on Education to the City of London Academy, 12 September 2005 (2,593 words); (B-PS): Anthony Blair, Prime Minister's statement opening the Iraq debate, 18 March 2003 (4,874 words); (RZ-PSp) 3: Jos Luis Rodrguez Zapatero, Discurso del Presidente del Gobierno en la presentacin del segundo Informe de la Fundacin Conocimiento y Desarrollo, Madrid, 23 de febrero de 2006 (2,757 words) (President of Governments speech during the presentation of the second Report of the Knowledge and Development Foundation, Madrid, 23 February 2006); (RZ-PS): Jos Luis Rodrguez Zapatero, Intervencin del Presidente del Gobierno ante el Pleno del Congreso para informar en relacin con el regreso de las tropas espaolas destacadas en Iraq, martes, 27 de abril de 2004 (2,997 words) (President of Governments statement in Parliamentary plenary session to inform about the return of the Spanish troops posted in Iraq, Tuesday, 27 April 2004).

In this paper I have worked with transcripts of the following texts:

The texts were first examined and tagged manually to categorize all the examples of evidential and modal 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 again according to the dimensions described above, i.e. types of enunciational position and parameters of subjectivity/intersubjectivity. The data were then submitted to further analysis for the quantitative results.

Results and discussion

4.1 Enunciational Stance Table 1 shows the results for the dimensions of enunciational stance in the discourse of Anthony Blair. The results are given in raw numbers and frequency per thousand words. The distribution is significant (Chi-square = 20.7302, Df. 5, p0.001). Overall, the use of stance markers in Blair's parliamentary statement on the Iraq war practically doubles that of his political speech on Education. This profuse use of modalizations reflects a lesser degree of commitment to the truth of the communicated proposition (cf. Bybee et al. 1994). In both communicative events an epistemic enunciational position is favoured. The main differences seem to be:

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse Political speech Stance: Blair 2,593 N Communicative Experiential Epistemic Attitudinal Aphonic TOTAL 1 4 24 15 4 48 R 0.386 1.543 9.256 5.785 1.543 18.511 Parliamentary statement 4,874 N R 22 17 53 42 27 161 4.514 3.488 10.874 8.617 5.539 33.032 TOTAL 7,467 words N R 23 21 77 57 31 209 3.080 2.812 10.312 7.633 4.152 27.990

125

Table 1 Stance: Blair Communicative stance: Blair clearly focuses, and directs the hearer's attention, to his enunciation in his parliamentary statement to a greater extent (And I say to you; Let me tell the House). Experiential stance: There is a higher frequency in the use of perceptual evidentials in his parliamentary statement, which points to a strategy of presenting evidence as shared or potentially shared with the interlocutor (It became clear after ; that fact is so obvious that) Attitudinal stance: The frequency of use of markers in this category is also higher in his parliamentary statement. Attitudinal stance markers signal the speaker's position with regard to the necessity or desirability of the state of affairs, as well as speaker's intentions, and are intended to have a greater persuasive effect (it is right that this House...; We must face the consequences...). Aphonic stance: the figures for aphony are quite low in the political speech, in comparison to his parliamentary statement. In the latter there is a greater tendency for Blair to show a lack of personal investment in his declarations, often disclaiming knowledge (and responsibility) for the events (Indeed we are asked to believe that...; But it wasn't clear at the time.). This points to a strategy of non-committal, or of disalignment on his part. The results for Jos Luis Rodrguez Zapatero, in Table 2, appear to be the reverse. The use of stance markers in his political speech on Education are far more frequent than those in his parliamentary statement on the withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. The distribution is significant (Chi-square= 23.7373, Df. 5, p0.001). The main differences are to be found in: Communicative stance: Just like Blair, Rodrguez Zapatero directs the hearer's attention to his enunciator role to a greater extent in his parliamentary statement (quiero informar a la Cmara que ... I wish to inform the House that ...). Experiential stance: There is a greater use of perceptual evidentials in his political speech, presenting evidence as shared or potentially shared with the interlocutor (como se ha puesto de manifiesto en el Informe. as has been revealed in the report.). Epistemic stance: The figures for epistemic stance are particularly striking; the frequency of use in his political speech is practically three times that of his parliamentary statement (sin duda alguna, vamos a ser capaces de no doubt we are going to be capable of ...).

126 Stance: Rodrguez Zapatero

Juana I. Marn Arrese Political speech 2,757 N R 14 11 45 39 2 111 5.078 3.990 16.322 14.146 0.725 40.261 Parliamentary statement 2,997 N R 24 4 16 34 4 82 8.008 1.335 5.339 11.344 1.335 27.361 TOTAL 5,754 words N R 38 15 61 73 6 193 6.604 2.607 10.601 12.687 1.043 33.542

Communicative Experiential Epistemic Attitudinal Aphonic TOTAL

Table 2. Stance: Rodrguez Zapatero Attitudinal stance: The normalised figures in his political speech are higher, signalling his position in terms of intentions, or necessity or desirability of the state of affairs (y es deseo del Gobierno que... and it is the wish of the Government that ...). Aphony: The figures for aphony are quite low in both events, which signals avoidance of information which might be interpreted as flawed in evidentiary validity, or as a form of disalignment on his part. Nonetheless, the frequency figures for the parliamentary statement double those of the political speech (No pretendo, Seoras, en esta intervencin ... I do not seek, my lords, in this statement ...). If we compare the overall configuration of stance, we find a certain similarity between both political speeches on Education by Blair and by Rodrguez Zapatero. Both speakers seem to rely most on epistemic and attitudinal markers. The main differences are to be found in the parliamentary statement on the Iraq war.3 Blair makes more use of markers of epistemic and attitudinal stance, as well as aphonic stance. In contrast, Rodrguez Zapatero makes very frequent use of markers of attitudinal and communicative stance, underscoring his personal involvement and trying to persuade the audience of the need and convenience of his decisions and actions. Table 3 presents the global figures for stance characterising the discourse of Blair in comparison to that of Rodrguez Zapatero. The distribution is significant (Chi-square= 28.5886, Df. 5, p0.001). The results for stance differ mainly in the following features: Communicative stance: Rodrguez Zapatero tends to direct the hearer's attention to his enunciational role to a greater extent in his discourse. Attitudinal stance: The figures for Rodrguez Zapatero are higher, making his position explicit in terms of intentions, or necessity or desirability of the state of affairs. This might be attributed to cultural differences in argumentation, as well as to the different structure and discursive practices in British and Spanish parliaments.4 In a previous contrastive study of
3

As one of my anonymous reviewers has noted, differences might be influenced by the speaker's awareness of the public opinion on the issue, i.e. the fact that Blair's involvement in the war in Iraq is heavily criticized whereas Zapatero's withdrawal of troops received more popular support. 4 I am grateful to one of my anonymous referees for pointing out this fact.

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse

127

media discourse (Marn Arrese et al. 2004), where we looked at modality in leading articles and opinion columns in English and Spanish, 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. Stance: Political Discourse N Communicative Experiential Epistemic Attitudinal Aphonic TOTAL 23 21 77 57 31 209 Blair 7,467 R 3.080 2.812 10.312 7.633 4.152 27.990 R. Zapatero 5,754 N R 38 15 61 73 6 193 6.604 2.607 10.601 12.687 1.043 33.542 TOTAL 13,221 words N R 61 36 138 130 37 402 4.614 2.722 10.438 9.833 2.798 30.406

Table 3 Stance: Blair vs. Rodrguez Zapatero Aphonic stance: The figures for aphony are far higher in the discourse of Blair. This shows a tendency to a lack of personal investment in his declarations, to non-commitment to the validity of his statements.

35 30 25 Communicative 20 15 10 5 0 Blair R. Zapatero Experiential Epistemic Attitudinal Aphonic TOTAL

Figure 3 illustrates the results for Stance: Blair vs. Rodrguez Zapatero

4.2 Subjectivity and intersubjectivity Table 4 presents the results for the parameters of subjectivity in the discourse of Anthony Blair. The distribution is significant (Chi-square= 15.7322, Df. 4, p0.01).

128

Juana I. Marn Arrese

Especially striking are the differences in the results for: Explicit subjectivity, shared responsibility: Blair makes frequent recourse to markers of collective responsibility (we know what happened.; the House is familiar...), or vague uses (you would have thought ; ... not any half-way rational observer believes...) in his parliamentary statement. This seems to involve a strategy aiming to present the decision as shared by other members of Parliament. Implicit subjectivity, personal responsibility: The higher use of these markers in his parliamentary statement also contributes to diffuse his personal responsibility (That must now be done ...; there is perhaps ...). Opaque, personal/shared responsibility: The use of markers of opaque subjectivity (which showed..., It became clear...) contributes to present the information as shared or potentially shared with the interlocutors in Parliament. The cumulative effect of the three strategies contributes to mystify his personal responsibility in the process of decision-taking. Subjectivity: Blair Political speech 2,593 N Explicit P. Explicit S. Implicit P. Opaque P/S TOTAL 13 3 25 7 48 R 5.013 1.156 9.641 2.699 18.511 Parliamentary Statement 4,874 N R 38 27 74 22 161 7.796 5.539 15.183 4.514 33.032 TOTAL 7,467 words N R 51 30 99 29 209 6.830 4.018 13.258 3.884 27.990

Table 4 Subjectivity/intersubjectivity: Blair The results for Rodrguez Zapatero's speech on education and his statement on Iraq, as shown in Table 5, are likewise uneven. The distribution is significant (Chi-square = 16.5262, Df. 4, p0.01). Subjectivity: Rodrguez Zapatero Political speech 2,757 N Explicit P. Explicit S. Implicit P. Opaque P/S TOTAL 36 12 43 20 111 R 13.058 4.352 15.597 7.254 40.261 Parliamentary Statement 2,997 N R 26 21 28 7 82 8.675 7.007 9.343 2.336 27.361 TOTAL 5,754 words N R 62 33 71 27 193 10.775 5.735 12.339 4.692 33.542

Table 5 Subjectivity/intersubjectivity: Rodrguez Zapatero

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse

129

The most significant differences are the following: Explicit/Implicit subjectivity, personal responsibility: The discourse of his political speech is characterized by a high presence of the speaker/conceptualizer, both explicitly and implicitly (Creo que ...-I think that ...; sin duda, abrir nuevas oportunidades...- no doubt will provide new opportunities...). In his parliamentary statement, the frequency of use of these resources is lower but still considerable. Explicit subjectivity, shared responsibility: The figures for this category are higher in the parliamentary statement, also obviously seeking to present information and responsibility as shared with others (lo que todos sabemos ...- what we all know ...). Opaque, personal/shared responsibility: These markers, which present the information as shared or potentially shared with the interlocutors, are more recurrent in his political speech (son la mejor demostracin de lo que...- they are the best demonstration of what ...). Table 6 presents the global figures characterising the discourse of Blair in comparison to that of Rodrguez Zapatero. Both speakers present a similar configuration in the distribution of the figures for subjectivity and intersubjectivity. The distribution is not significant (Chi-square = 8.7477, Df. 4, p0.10).

Subjectivity: Political Discourse N Explicit P. Explicit S. Implicit P. Opaque P/S TOTAL

Blair 7,467 R 51 30 99 29 209 6.830 4.018 13.258 3.884 27.990

R. Zapatero 5,754 N R 62 33 71 27 193 10.775 5.735 12.339 4.692 33.542

TOTAL 13,221 words N R 113 63 170 56 402 8.547 4.765 12.858 4.236 30.406

Table 6 Subjectivity/intersubjectivity: Blair vs. Rodrguez Zapatero The main difference between both speakers is found in the parameter of explicit subjectivity, personal responsibility: in both communicative events, Rodrguez Zapatero tends to assume personal responsibility for the information and for decisions to a higher degree than does Blair. In contrast, as we have seen, Blair's discourse tends to be characterised by a strategy of diffusion of responsibility.

130

Juana I. Marn Arrese Figure 4 illustrates the results for subjectivity/intersubjectivity.

35 30 25 Explicit P 20 15 10 5 0 Blair R. Zapatero Explicit Sh. Implicit P Opaque P/Sh TOTAL

Figure 4 Subjectivity/intersubjectivity: Blair vs. Rodrguez Zapatero

Conclusion

In this paper I have examined the domains of speaker's enunciational stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse. The paper has presented a corpus study on the use of linguistic resources for the expression of stance, in order to reveal the extent to which these linguistic elements are indices of speakers' rhetorical intentions and of the expression of subjectivity/intersubjectivity in discourse. 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). The dimension of intersubjectivity is closely linked to the notions of personal vs. shared responsibility for the information (Nuyts 2001). In this paper 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 salience or overtness of the role of the conceptualizer. Political discourse appears to be characterized by the extensive use of markers of epistemic and attitudinal stance in both languages. The most relevant differences between the two speakers are found in the domains of communicative and aphonic stance. The use of aphony whereby the speaker avoids positioning him/herself was found to be a frequent strategy in Blair's discourse. In the realm of subjectivity/intersubjectivity there were no significant differences between the speakers. The most notable ones were those found in the higher use of markers of explicit personal responsibility by Rodrguez Zapatero, in particular those making reference to the speaker's communicative stance.

References
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Brandt, P. A. (2004) Evidentiality and enunciation: A cognitive and semiotic approach. In J. Marn Arrese (ed.) Perspectives on evidentiality and modality. Madrid: Editorial Complutense. 3-10.

Stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse

131

Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fitneva, S. (2001) Epistemic marking and reliability judgements: Evidence from Bulgarian. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 401-420. Giora, R. (2006) On the accessibility of negated concepts. Laud Linguistic Agency. Essen: Universitt Duisburg-Essen. Gmez Torrego, L. (1999) Los verbos auxiliares: Las perfrasis verbales de infinitivo. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds.) Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. 3323-3390. Kaup, B. (2001) Negation and its impact on the accessibility of text information. Memory and Cognition 29: 960-967. Kitawaga, C. and A. Lehrer (1990) Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 739-759. Langacker, R. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. (2000) Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. (2002) Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (ed.) Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-28. Langacker, R. (2004) Aspects of the grammar of finite clauses. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer (eds.) Language, culture and mind. Stanford: CSLI. 535-577. Levinson, S. (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics 17: 365-399. Marn Arrese, J. (2004) Evidential and epistemic qualifications in the discourse of fact and opinion: A comparable corpus study. In J. Marn Arrese (ed.) Perspectives on evidentiality and modality. Madrid: Editorial Complutense. 153-184. Marn Arrese, J. (2006) Commitment and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in discourse. In M. Carretero, L. Hidalgo, J. Lavid, E. Martnez Caro, J. Neff, S. Prez de Ayala and E. Snchez-Pardo (eds.) A pleasure of life in words: A festschrift for Angela Downing. Madrid: CERSA. Marn Arrese, J., L. Hidalgo and S. Molina (2004) Evidential, epistemic and deontic modality in English and Spanish: The expression of writer stance in newspaper discourse. In R. Facchinetti and F. Palmer (eds.) English modality in perspective: Genre analysis and contrastive studies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. 121-139. Martin, J.R. and 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. 215-225. Nuyts, J. (2001) Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Palmer, F. (2001) Mood and modality. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plungian, V. (2001) The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 349-357. Ridruejo, E. (1999) Modo y modalidad. El modo en las subordinadas sustantivas. In A. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds.) Gramtica descriptiva de la lengua Espaola. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. 3209-3252. 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. 471-489.

132

Juana I. Marn Arrese

Sanders, J. and W. Spooren (1996) Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 7.3: 241-264. van der Auwera, J. and V. Plungian (1998) Modality's semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2.1: 79124. van Leeuwen, T. (1996) The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.) Texts and practices. London: Routledge. 32-70. White, P. (2003) Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23.2: 259-284.