“I Think, Therefore . . .”

Abstract

At the crossroads of political and forensic linguistics, the notion of commitment presents a rich area for investigation into language use. An analysis of the discourse delivered by a high-level political official during testimony at the 9-11 Commission Hearings reveals three types of commitment: (a) commitment to a course of action, (b) commitment to an assertion, and (c) commitment to truth value. Within these three types, the juxtaposition of the common expression I think in terms of both evidential and non-evidential use is examined to determine whether it functions as a pragmatic trigger for the degree of commitment expressed by the speaker and, concomitantly, as an attempt on the part of the speaker to manipulate the perceptions of the hearers and overhearers to achieve specific intentions.