In this introductory paper we outline the aims of the special issue on epistemic and evidential expressions in English across time, the main areas of research within this field and give a summary of the papers included in the special issue, while also highlighting how they contribute to the overarching research aim and how they intersect.
AijmerKarin. 2009. Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language16(1). 63-88.
2.
AijmerKarin. 2026. ‘Yeah obvs. That’s awesome.’ A Short-Term Semantic-Pragmatic Change in Present-Day English. Journal of English Linguistics54(3). Special Issue Epistemic and Evidential Expressions in English Over Time.
3.
AikhenvaldAlexandra Y.2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
AikhenvaldAlexandra Y.2006. Evidentiality in grammar. In BrownKeith (ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, vol. 4, 2nd edn., 320-325. Oxford: Elsevier.
5.
AikhenvaldAlexandra YLaPollaRandy J. 2007. New perspectives on evidentials: A view from Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30(2). 1-12.
6.
BednarekMonika. 2006. Epistemological positioning and evidentiality in English news discourse: A text-driven approach. Text & Talk26(6). 635-660.
7.
BrintonLaurel J.2023. Pragmatics in the history of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BybeeJoanEddingtonDavid. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language82(2). 323-355.
9.
BybeeJoan L.2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In HoffmannThomasTrousdaleGraeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49-69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
CappelleBertDepraetereIlse. 2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence fromThe Simpsons. Constructions and Frames8(1). 7-39.
11.
ChafeWallace L.1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In ChafeWallace L.NicholsJohanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 261-312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12.
ChafeWallace L.NicholsJohanna (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
13.
ClaridgeClaudiaJonssonEwaKytöMerja. 2024. Intensifiers in Late Modern English: A sociopragmatic approach to courtroom discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
CornillieBert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language16(1). 44-62.
15.
CulpeperJonathanNevalaMinna. 2012. Sociocultural processes and the history of English. In NevalainenTerttuTraugottElizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 365-391. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
CurlTraci S. & Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction41(2). 129-153. doi:10.1080/08351810802028613.
17.
DenisonDavid. 1993. English historical syntax verbal constructions. London: Longman.
18.
DeutscherGuy. 2011. The grammaticalisation of quotatives. In NarrogHeikoHeineBernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalisation, 646-655. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
DiewaldGabrieleSmirnovaElena. 2010a. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalisation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
20.
DiewaldGabrieleSmirnovaElena (eds.). 2010b. Linguistic realisation of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
21.
FarrellyMichaelSeoaneElena. 2012. Democratization. In TraugottElizabeth C.NevalainenTerttu (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 392-401. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
FetzerAnitaOishiEtsuko. 2014. Evidentiality in discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics11(3). 321-332.
23.
FischerOlga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
FoxBarbara A.2008. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology11(2). 167-192.
GrundPeter J.2012. The nature of knowledge: Evidence and evidentiality in the witness depositions from the Salem witch trials. American Speech87(1). 7-38.
28.
GrundPeter J. 2026. Negotiating Knowledge: Evidential Verbs and Stance in Early and Late Modern English. Journal of English Linguistics54(3). Special Issue Epistemic and Evidential Expressions in English Over Time.
29.
GumperzJohn. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
HeritageJohn. 2013. Epistemics in conversation. In SidnellJackStiversTanya (eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis, 370-394. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.
31.
HerlynAnne. 1999. So he says to her, he says, “Well,” he says. . . Multiple dialogue introducers from a historical perspective. In JuckerAndreas H.FritzGerdLebsanftFranz (eds.), Historical discourse analysis, 313-330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.66.13her.
32.
HiltunenTuroPortoLucía Loureiro. 2020a. Democratization of Englishes: Synchronic and diachronic. Language Sciences79. 1-8.
33.
HiltunenTuroPortoLucía Loureiro. 2020b. New perspectives on democratization. Language Sciences 79. 101275.
34.
HylandKen. 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes13(3). 239-256.
35.
JuckerAndreas H.2013. Corpus pragmatics. In ÖstmanJan-OlaVerschuerenJef (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1-17. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
36.
JuckerAndreas H. 2020. Politeness in the history of English: From the Middle Ages to the present day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
KärkkäinenElise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38.
KeevallikLeelo. 2008. Conjunction and sequenced actions: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et. In LauryRitva (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 125-152. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
39.
KranichSvenja. 2021. Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English. In KranichSvenjaBrebanTine (eds.), Lost in change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions (Studies in Language Companion Series), 261-290. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
40.
KranichSvenjaHannaBrunsHampelElisabeth. 2021. Requests across varieties and cultures: Norms are changing (but not everywhere in the same way). Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies32(1). 91-114.
41.
KranichSvenjaElisabethHampelHannaBruns. 2020. Changes in the modal domain in different varieties of English as potential effects of democratization. Language Sciences79. 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101271.
42.
KranichSvenjaKnewitzSimonePirazziniDanielaBrunsHanna (eds.) 2026. The Language of Democratization: Roles, Social Positions, and Discourse (Routledge Studies in Applied Linguistics). London: Routledge.
43.
KrugManfred. 2003. Frequency as a determinant of grammatical variation and change. In RohdenburgGünterMondorfBritta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 7-67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
44.
KytöMerja. 1991. Variation and diachrony, with Early American English in focus: Studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/WILL. Bern: Peter Lang.
LeechGeoffreyHundtMarianneMairChristianSmithNicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
LeechGeoffreyNicholasSmith. 2006. Recent grammatical change in written English 1961-1992: Some preliminary findings of a comparison of American with British English. In RenoufAntoinetteKehoeAndrew (eds.), The changing face of corpus linguistics, 186-204. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
48.
LenkerUrsula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric: Adverbial connectives in the history of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110216066.
49.
MairChristian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
MélacEric. 2022. The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language and Linguistics26(2). 331-359.
51.
MichaelLev. 2014. Social dimensions of language change. In BowernClaireEvansBethwyn (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 484-502. London: Routledge.
52.
MyhillJohn. 1997. Should and ought: The rise of individually oriented modality in American English. English Language and Linguistics1(1). 3-23.
53.
NarrogHeiko. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001.
54.
PalmerFrank. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
PõldvereNele. 2026. Recent Change of Modality in One Speech Act in Spoken English. Journal of English Linguistics54(3). Special Issue Epistemic and Evidential Expressions in English Over Time.
56.
RaymondGeoffreyHeritageJohn. 2006. The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society35(5). 677-705.
57.
ReberElisabeth. 2021. Quoting in parliamentary question time: Exploring recent change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
ReberElisabeth. 2026. On the Evolution of Inferential Practices in Late Modern English and Present Day English Court Opinions. Journal of English Linguistics54(3). Special Issue Epistemic and Evidential Expressions in English Over Time.
59.
ReberElisabethJuckerAndreas H. 2023a. Diachronic pragmatics: New perspectives on recent developments of spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics216. 67-74.
60.
ReberElisabethAndreasH. Jucker (eds.). 2023b. Virtual Special Issue Diachronic Pragmatics: Perspectives on Spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics216. 67-74.
61.
ReynoldsEdward. 2015. How participants in arguments challenge the normative position of an opponent. Discourse Studies7(3). 299-316.
62.
SchiffrinDeborah. 1994. Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
63.
Simon-VandenbergenAnne-MarieAijmerKarin. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty: A study of English adverbs. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
64.
ThompsonSandra A.MulacAnthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the gramaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In TraugottElizabeth C.HeineBernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2, 313-339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
65.
TraugottElizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language65. 31-55.
66.
TraugottElizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In SteinDieterWrightSusan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 31-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
TraugottElizabeth ClossDasherRichard B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
TrudgillPeter. 2020. Sociolinguistic typology and the speed of linguistic change. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics6(2). 1-13. doi:10.1515/jhsl-2019-0015.
69.
Van der AuweraJohanSchalleyEwaNuytsJan. 2005. Epistemic possibility in a Slavonic parallel corpus: A pilot study. In KarlikPetrHansenBjörn (eds.), Modality in Slavonic languages: New perspectives, 201-217. München: Sagner.
70.
WichmannSørenHolmanEric W. 2009. Assessing temporal stability for linguistic typological features. München: Lincom Europa.
71.
WooffittRobinAllistonSimon. 2008. Participation, procedure and accountability: ‘You said’ speech markers in negotiating reports of ambiguous phenomena. Discourse Studies10(3). 407-427.
