This book explores a path that has remained largely untrodden in the field of modality so far: it offers an analysis of adverbs that express certainty. Even though these adverbs communicate modal meaning, the authors convincingly show that the communicative functions of adverbs of certainty extend far beyond those of conveying epistemic or evidential meaning. Through a detailed survey of the syntagmatic behaviour of the adverbs as it is apparent from (basically) the ICE corpus, and a paradigmatic analysis of their French, Dutch, Swedish and German translation equivalents, the authors offer a comprehensive picture of their semantic and pragmatic meaning. They distinguish four subclasses of adverbs of certainty: (a) epistemic certainty verbs (certainly, definitely, indeed, no doubt and surely); (b) evidential adverbs (obviously, clearly (with a few notes about evidently, plainly); (c) expectation adverbs (of course, naturally (with a few notes about necessarily and inevitably); and (d) speech act adverbs (arguably, admittedly, undeniably, unquestionably).

This piece of data-based research fills a gap and is a textbook example of solid data-driven argumentation and transparent structure. Having introduced the topic and described their aims in chapter 1, the authors set the broader scene and provide all the background information required about models and theories of meaning, about epistemic meaning and approaches to evidentiality, and about previous research on adverbs and, in particular, on modal adverbs. They show what are useful (and less useful) tools for the analysis they embark upon; they pick and choose concepts which will help to lay bare the meaning of the adverbs and the relations between them (chapters 2 to 5). Chapters 6 to 8 present the actual analyses of clusters of adverbs, the selection of which is based on frequency of occurrence in ICE-GB: the epistemic certainty adverbs are studied in chapters 5 and 6; the expectation adverbs in chapter 7; and the speech act adverbs in chapter 8. There is a regular pattern in the descriptions: the authors discuss the syntactic behaviour of the adverbs (modifiers, position, mood of sentences in which they are used) in (mainly) the ICE corpus, their collocations and the wider linguistic context in which they occur. They highlight the typical features and, little by little, a delicate picture emerges of what elements of meaning are shared and what elements of meaning set them apart. The description of the monolingual data is followed each time by a ‘semantic-pragmatic description’, which emerges from the translation data. To complement the picture, the authors analyse the relative distribution of the adverbs across different text types, and the genre differences are at times the final clue to meaning differentiation (chapter 9). The different threads of analysis result in a semantic-pragmatic network of meaning for each modal, which is presented in a map. The maps offer an overall catalogue of the (modal and non-modal) meanings and functions of modal adverbs of certainty as they have become apparent in the corpus, and they highlight the ‘major meanings’ and (the more pragmatic) meaning extensions communicated by the modal adverbs in question (chapter 10). Chapter 11 offers a survey of all the syntactic, lexical semantic and pragmatic features and the meaning profiles resulting from the analysis.

It is actually quite exciting to witness how, gradually, similarities and differences in meaning are brought to light by the interpretation of the data, and how they result in a delicate network including the rhetorical uses of the different markers of certainty. After all, ‘we only say we are certain when we are not’ (Halliday Reference Halliday and Matthiessen2004: 625 cited on page 2). The authors appeal to White's (2003) use of ‘heteroglossia’ when describing the dialogic potential of the adverbs and their rhetorical functions like countering, endorsing, etc. It is impossible to list the shades of meaning and functions that are revealed by the authors’ analysis; the following are a taste of their interesting findings and evidence for them: even though no doubt literally refers to absence of doubt, like surely, it expresses ‘less than absolute certainty’ (p. 145) and marks probability. The related existential construction there is no doubt conveys objective or ‘intersubjective’ certainty. Surely, unlike no doubt, has developed into a discourse marker as emphasizer and intensifier. Especially when used in end position, no doubt has an ironic overtone. Obviously is used when the speaker wants to establish common ground, either for reasons of bonding or because the speaker wants to present an alternative claim. It turns out to be less emphatic and more dismissive than clearly.

It is hard to find fault with the methodology and the resulting analysis. The detail of the different positions of the adverbs in the clause is not crystal clear (initial end, initial medial, medial post-finite, pp. 82, 90, 164–5; p. 175), but this does not lead to major misunderstandings. The observations on the distinction between semantic and pragmatic meaning sound quite intuitive (cf. e.g. 262), but again, this does not invalidate the findings in any way. The authors at times draw conclusions without much further ado, such as

But the rare occasions on which this happens pale into insignificance against the overall painstaking effort that has been made to underpin the claims with data.

While there is a general awareness that multilingual corpora are important for translation studies (cf. e.g. Baker Reference Baker1995, Olohan Reference Olohan2004) or contrastive linguistics (cf. e.g. Wärnsby Reference Wärnsby2006), their contribution to the study of the meaning of monolingual data has been put to the test less often (cf. e.g. Dyvik Reference Dyvik, Aijmer and Altenberg2004, Noël Reference Noël2003, Salkie & Oates Reference Salkie and Oates1999). In this respect, Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer's systematic quantitative translational approach is original. The authors have chosen to study the possible translations of the adverbs of certainty in French, Dutch, German and Swedish systematically because they believe that they can contribute to a ‘fine-grained picture of the multiple senses of words in the source language’ (p. 7), and help to discover ‘subtle meaning distinctions which may go unnoticed if one considers monolingual data’ (p. 7). To give just one example: the analysis of the English data suggests that obviously means ‘as is to be expected and as you can see’ whereas clearly means ‘as you can see’. In other words, clearly communicates more exclusively evidential meaning. This is confirmed by the translations (with quantitative surveys of the translations being offered in the appendices): while both evidential adverbs and (especially) expectation adverbs like natuurlijk or självklart are used to translate obviously, clearly is translated more frequently with evidential adverbs like blijkbaar, duidelijk, clairement, il est clair, de toute evidence, tydligt, deutlich. However, the authors are very much aware of the fact that the translation data do not tell the whole story, and that they need to be interpreted with caution, as the translations too ‘can be polysemous and multifunctional’ (p. 257) This is one of the reasons why they have chosen to complement the corpus findings with an elicitation test, with the aim of obtaining extra evidence for the more subtle meaning differences.

It will be clear that the great strength of this book lies in the descriptive detail it offers. The authors conclude by saying that they welcome the fact that their study ‘raises more questions in the fascinating area of modal certainty’ (p. 324). Indeed, it does, in the very stimulating sense that their systematic translational approach seems very promising and calls for more. There is no doubt that this book will inspire similar studies in the domain of modality and in other domains.