Epistemic Verbs and the Expression of Knowledge in English and Mandarin
Abstract
Language and knowledge are fundamentally intertwined, shaping how individuals perceive, interpret, and express reality. This study investigates epistemic verbs as linguistic indicators of knowledge and belief within two distinct epistemological and cultural frameworks: English and Mandarin Chinese. By adopting a qualitative descriptive–comparative approach, grounded in functional linguistics and epistemic discourse analysis, this research explores how epistemic verbs reflect the ways speakers conceptualize truth, certainty, and cognition. The data were collected from authentic corpora—including dialogues, news articles, academic essays, and conversational transcripts—and analyzed through semantic, pragmatic, and cultural dimensions using triangulated methods. Findings reveal that English epistemic verbs (e.g., know, believe, think, guess) form a hierarchical and explicit epistemic system, emphasizing rational certainty, empirical evidence, and individual cognition, consistent with Western philosophical traditions. In contrast, Mandarin epistemic verbs (e.g., 知道 zhīdào, 认为 rènwéi, 觉得 juéde, 相信 xiāngxìn) display contextual, relational, and affective orientations, integrating emotion and social harmony in the expression of knowledge, reflecting an Eastern holistic worldview. Comparative analysis demonstrates that English expresses epistemic stance vertically, based on degrees of certainty, while Mandarin expresses it horizontally, emphasizing social context and relational appropriateness. These contrasts highlight deeper philosophical divides between Western rationalism and Eastern relational holism, suggesting that linguistic forms mirror epistemological ideologies. The study concludes that epistemic verbs are not mere grammatical categories but cognitive-cultural constructs that embody each society’s way of “knowing” and “believing.” Understanding these differences is vital for intercultural communication, as epistemic misalignment often leads to pragmatic misunderstanding between English and Mandarin speakers. This research contributes to the emerging field of cross-cultural epistemic linguistics, offering insights into how language, cognition, and culture collectively shape the human expression of knowledge.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.
Chafe, W. L. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261–272). Ablex Publishing.
Chen, R. (2011). Politeness and epistemic verbs in Chinese discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1231–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.015
Chuey, A., Luo, Y., & Markman, E. M. (2024). Epistemic language in news headlines shapes readers’ perceptions of objectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(20). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2314091121
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
J. Lin, & P. J. (Eds. . (2023). Chinese Lexical Semantics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0586-3_24
Lee, P. (2006). Knowing and feeling in Chinese: Epistemic expressions and cultural context. Language and Communication, 26(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.11.001
Liu, L., & Tao, H. (2020). The pragmatics of epistemic verbs in Mandarin: A corpus-based study. Chinese Language and Discourse, 11(2), 256–278.
Liu, Y. Q. (2024). Research on the Influence of Human Language on the Formation and Development of Thinking. Communications in Humanities Research. 45, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/45/20240096
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
Ma, C., [dan k. lain]. (2025). Exploring influences of past learning experiences, individualist–collectivist cultural identity, and social value orientation on learning preferences: a China–UK comparative study. Frontiers in Psychology.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Moleong, L. J. (2019). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif (Edisi revisi). PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Yang, W., Gu, Y., Fang, Y., & Sun, M. (2022). Cross-cultural misunderstanding and epistemic verbs: A pragmatic analysis of English–Mandarin interaction. Intercultural Communication Studies, 31(1), 44–59.
Yang, Wenxing; Gu, Yiting; Fang, Ying; Sun, Y. (2022). Mental Representations of Time in English Monolinguals, Mandarin Monolinguals, and Mandarin–English Bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.791197
Zhang, Y. (2012). Epistemology and language: A comparative study of Chinese and English knowledge expressions. Modern Foreign Languages, 35(3), 89–99.
Zhou, J., & Xia, Y. (2024). Register-based distribution of expressions of modality in COCA. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11,.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/jele.v10i5.1596
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Devi Alvionita Alindra, M Manugeren, Efendi Barus

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


