Children learn to distinguish registers for different roles: talk as child versus as adult, as girl versus boy, as parent versus child, as teacher, as doctor, marking each “voice” with intonation, vocabulary, and speech acts. They learn to mark gender and status with each role; what counts as polite, how to address different people, how to mark membership in a speech community (e.g., family, school, tennis players, chess players), and how to convey specific goals in conversation. They reply on experts for new word meanings and identify some adults as reliable sources of such information. They mark information as reliable or as second-hand, through use of evidentials. They adapt their speech to each addressee and take into account the common ground relevant to each from as young as 1;6 on. They keep track of what is given and what new, making use of articles (a versus the), and moving from definite noun phrases (new) to pronouns (given). They learn to be persuasive, and persistent, bargaining in their negotiations. They give stage directions in pretend play. And they start to use figurative language. They learn how questions work at school. And they learn how to tell stories.

Chapter 17 aims to give an integrated account of how subjectivity and intersubjectivity are coded in Korean sentence endings, how such suffixes are diachronically derived from their source constructions, and what typological and socio-cultural factors motivate the emergence and proliferation of such suffixes. The chapter surveys how suffixes index the speaker or both the speaker and addressee as an integral component in their semantic structure. It then examines how such (inter)subjective inflectional suffixes have diachronically been grammaticalized from non-subjective source constructions. The chapter shows that in Korean and in other languages, subjectification tends to lead to intersubjectification and not vice versa. Finally, the chapter argues that the relatively extensive diversity of inflectional suffixes in Korean, especially intersubjective suffixes, is due to two facts: 1) typologically head-final syntax and a typical agglutinative morphology and 2) the time-honored cultural values of hierarchism and collectivism as well as recent dynamic socio-economic mobilities in Korean society and culture.

Novel, largely artificial-intelligence-driven technologies have become more widely accessible in recent years. This, combined with the rising dominance of social media as a primary source of news and the “weaponization” of information for political and other purposes, has led to increases in the forgery and manipulation of the evidential basis of factual claims. How easy is it for us to know when the evidentials that we rely upon to assess something as “fact” have been undermined? This chapter examines different types of evidential forgery and manipulation and describes the technological, social, and cognitive challenges we face in identifying these undermined evidentials. The chapter also explores what happens if we do become aware that the evidentiary underpinnings of our facts might be untrustworthy, and asks what threat this uncertainty poses to the epistemic foundations of societal trusting relations.

Chapter 5 presents a case-study of confirmationals and introduces a syntactic analysis within the framework of the Interactional Spine Hypothesis. Confirmationals are units of language which express a request for confirmation. I show that the target of confirmation can differ depending on the syntactic context. This is an instance of multi-functionality, which is best analyzed as being syntactically conditioned. As such the pattern of confirmationals within and across languages provides evidence for the interactional spine; it is the system which regulates the function and distribution of confirmationals. I discuss in detail the kind of variation we observe. That is, within and across languages, confirmationals differ as to who hasauthority over the knowledge to be confirmed, to what degree the belief to be confirmed holds, and when this belief came into existence. Moreover, we also observe that in some languages confirmationals come in full paradigms (e.g., Mandarin Chinese) whereas in others the inventory of confirmationals is much more restricted (English). I further show how confirmationals can be combined with intonational tunes to derive the complex meaning that they may have. Finally, I discuss other units of language that share some properties with confirmationals, such as evidentials.