36.2214, Reviews: English evidential -ly adverbs from a functional perspective: Loïs Kemp (2024)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2214. Sun Jul 20 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.2214, Reviews: English evidential -ly adverbs from a functional perspective: Loïs Kemp (2024)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 20-Jul-2025
From: Maria Esposito [mariaesposito812 at gmail.com]
Subject: General Linguistics: Loïs Kemp (2024)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/36-543

Title: English evidential -ly adverbs from a functional perspective
Series Title: LOT Dissertation Series
Publication Year: 2024

Publisher: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke
(LOT)
           http://www.lotpublications.nl/
Book URL: https://dx.medra.org/10.48273/LOT0682

Author(s): Loïs Kemp

Reviewer: Maria Esposito

Please write or copy and paste your review of English evidential -ly
adverbs from a functional perspective here.
SUMMARY
Kemp’s ‘English Evidential -ly Adverbs from a Functional Perspective’,
based on her doctoral dissertation, consists of six chapters. It aims
to analyze the distribution and meaning of eleven English -ly
evidential adverbs. The study is based on De Haan’s (2005) definition
of evidentiality (p. 5), extending it to include both external and
internal sources of evidence, thereby enabling a more comprehensive
account of the multifunctionality of evidential adverbs (p. 40). The
analysis is further grounded in the FDG evidential categories as
proposed by Hengeveld and Dall’Aglio Hattnher (2015), where layering
is determined by semantic and pragmatic criteria.
Chapter 1 serves as an introduction outlining the key concepts of
evidentiality and the theoretical framework of Functional Discourse
Grammar (FDG), focusing on its layered structure. Four research
questions are presented concerning the classification of English -ly
evidential adverbs within the FDG model, their distribution in main
clauses and complement clauses, and the influence of adjectival
properties on their occurrence in noun phrases. Chapters 2 to 6
address these questions through the application of the FDG framework.
A section is dedicated to the methodology of Kemp’s study (pp. 10-11):
adverbs were extracted from UK newspaper articles, specifically from
the British section of the News on the Web corpus (NOW; Davies
2010–present). The adverbs selected were those with a core meaning of
source of information, as identified in Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and
Svartvik (1985). Their frequency was then cross-checked using the
online Collins English Dictionary (2018), and the most frequent
adverbs were further analyzed within the NOW corpus.
Chapter 2 delves into the link between the semantics and scope of
evidential adverbs and their distribution across the functional layers
of grammar. The study uses a series of tests (pp. 21–27), including
contingency and contradiction tests based on Peterson (2017) and
Murray (2017). These tests confirm the classification of English -ly
evidential adverbs into the four FDG subcategories and highlight
specific properties of each. Prior to testing, it was verified that
the meanings of these adverbs align with the evidential subcategories
in FDG. The tests demonstrated that adverb position influences
interpretation and layer classification; for example, visibly may
function as either an evidential or a manner adverb. Adverbs with
multiple meanings showed context-dependent, “chameleon-like” behavior.
Reportative adverbs were shown to convey a non-speaker perspective,
unlike the other types, which reflect a speaker perspective. When two
evidential adverbs co-occurred, they followed FDG’s hierarchical
ordering. Finally, the study observed that evidential adverbs can
appear in clausal complements of certain predicates, subject to
constraints based on layer compatibility.
Chapter 3 is a slightly adapted version of Kemp (2018). It offers a
detailed analysis of the eleven evidential adverbs (reportedly,
purportedly, allegedly, supposedly, evidently, presumably, seemingly,
apparently, obviously, clearly, and visibly), focusing on their
behavior in main clauses. Although the chapter does not examine the
diachronic development of these adverbs, it aims to determine whether
a similar stepwise categorization pattern – like that observed by
Hengeveld and Dall’Aglio Hattnher (2015) – applies to English -ly
evidential adverbs within the FDG framework. It is hypothesized that
these adverbs follow a stepwise distribution across adjacent FDG
hierarchical layers. The findings support this: adverbs with multiple
meanings at the representational level tend to span neighboring
layers, and only two adverbs, apparently and evidently (p. 64), occur
at both the interpersonal and representational levels. This stepwise
pattern may reflect an underlying developmental path, which would
require further diachronic investigation.
Chapter 4 provides a refined version of Kemp (2023), incorporating
revisions that deepen the original analysis. The focus is on the use
of evidential adverbs in complement clauses, particularly how clause
structure affects evidential anchoring. Applying the FDG framework,
the analysis disentangles the factors influencing the choice of adverb
in these contexts. While in many cases evidential adverbs with a
current speaker anchor align with the semantics of the
complement-taking predicate, mismatches were observed – though
notably, only in relation to current speaker anchors. No mismatches
occurred with actor anchors, which consistently conformed to the
semantic constraints of the complement clause. These findings suggest
that the anchor of the evidential adverb, whether current speaker or
actor, plays a crucial role in its distribution. In some instances,
the speaker anchor can override the expected selectional restrictions
imposed by the complement clause. Thus, it is not only the nature of
the clause and the semantics of the adverb that determine its
occurrence, but also the anchoring perspective, highlighting the
importance of the anchor in FDG-based analysis (p. 92).
Chapter 5 revisits Kemp and Hengeveld (2022), presenting a slightly
adapted version enriched with new reflections and comments. It
illustrates the distribution and role of English evidential -ly
adverbs in noun phrases, specifically in constructions involving a
single adjective and no embedding. It includes a classification of
evidential adverbs according to FDG’s evidential categories –
reportative, inferential, deductive, and event perception – supported
by quantitative data. Four main factors influencing distribution were
analyzed: the type of evidentiality expressed (p. 96), the type of
adjectival modification (p. 102), the semantic nature of the modified
adjective (p. 106), and the adjective’s restrictiveness (p. 111).
Additionally, the last section of this chapter examines the pragmatic
effects, such as rhetorical cynicism and stress shifts. The analysis
shows that evidential adverbs maintain consistent meanings across
clause and noun phrase contexts and follow the FDG evidentiality
hierarchy. Reportative and inferential adverbs occur most frequently
in noun phrases, while deduction and event perception adverbs are
rare. Adjectives expressing speaker attitude are never modified by
evidential adverbs, and evaluative or restrictive status alone does
not account for distribution – rather, it is mediated by whether the
adjective expresses a permanent or contingent property.
Chapter 6 returns to the initial predictions, comparing them with the
empirical findings and discussing observed exceptions. The results of
the study largely confirmed the theoretical expectations formulated at
the outset, particularly those concerning the layered structure of FDG
and its influence on modifier distribution. While the majority of the
data supported the predicted scopal alignment between evidential
adverbs and their syntactic environments, some notable exceptions
emerged, especially in complement clauses, where the anchoring of the
adverb to the current speaker occasionally overrode the expected
hierarchical constraints. These exceptions underline the importance of
pragmatic anchoring in determining adverb placement and call for
further investigation into the interplay between discourse roles and
grammatical structure. In this final chapter, Kemp herself outlines
several directions for future research. These include applying the FDG
framework to other varieties of English, additional registers, or
spoken data. She also suggests expanding the analysis to other
syntactic environments, such as adverbial or relative clauses, and
investigating developmental aspects, including acquisition patterns of
evidential layering. A diachronic perspective, she notes, could
further test FDG’s predictions regarding changes in evidential
function over time.
EVALUATION
Kemp’s book represents a valuable contribution to the study of
evidentiality in English, integrating empirical data with formal
theoretical modeling within the Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG)
framework. The use of corpus data from the NOW corpus provides a
robust empirical foundation, while the systematic application of FDG
allows for a nuanced analysis of how -ly evidential adverbs function
across syntactic environments and discourse layers.
A particularly strong point is the treatment of adverbial
multifunctionality. Rather than enforcing rigid distinctions, Kemp
adopts a flexible, context-sensitive classification that captures the
overlap between evidential and manner readings. The use of diagnostic
tools, including contingency and contradiction tests, adds
methodological rigor and supports the proposed subcategorization
within FDG. Each chapter effectively addresses the initial research
questions, especially regarding anchoring and functional layering. The
FDG model proves especially useful in distinguishing interpersonal
from representational functions, offering a refined view of adverbial
behavior in English.
This book will be especially useful to scholars working within FDG, as
well as those interested in evidentiality, adverbial syntax, and
corpus-based approaches to grammar. While the discussion is
occasionally dense, particularly in theoretical sections, the
inclusion of corpus examples helps maintain clarity. One limitation is
the exclusive focus on written data, which leaves out potentially
relevant patterns from informal registers and spoken language.
Nevertheless, the work fills a gap in the literature by focusing on
lexical evidential adverbs, rather than grammaticalized forms or
modals, and successfully bridges formal and usage-based perspectives.
It opens productive directions for further research into
evidentiality, layering, and the interface between syntax and
discourse.
REFERENCES
Collins English Dictionary. 2018.
www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english.
Davies, Mark. 2010 –. News on the Web (NOW).
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2005. Encoding speaker perspective: Evidentials.
In Zygmunt. Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges and David S. Rood (eds.),
Linguistic diversity and language theories, 379-397. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. doi.org/10.1075/slcs.72.18haa.
Hengeveld, Kees & Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher. 2015. Four types
of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics 53(3).
479-524. doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0010.
Kemp, Lois. 2018. English evidential -ly adverbs in main clauses: A
functional approach. Open Linguistics 4. 743-761.
doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0036.
Kemp, Lois. 2023. When English complement clauses meet evidential
adverbs. English Language & Linguistics 17(4). 749-772.
doi.org/10.1017/S1360674323000151.
Kemp, Lois & Kees Hengeveld. 2022. English evidential -ly adverbs in
the noun phrase from a functional perspective. Open Linguistics 8.
573-592. doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0208.
Murray, Sarah E. 2017. The semantics of evidentials. New York: Oxford
University Press. doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001.
Peterson, Tyler. 2017. Problematizing mirativity. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics 15(2). 312-342. doi: 10.1075/rcl.15.2.02pet.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney, Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik.
1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London:
Longman.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Maria Esposito holds a Master’s degree in Linguistics and Cognitive
Studies from the University of Siena, with a thesis on number
agreement attraction in Italian sentence comprehension. Her research
interests include psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, and cognitive
neuroscience, with a focus on language acquisition, sentence
processing, and the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying
morphosyntactic structures.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2214
----------------------------------------------------------