Volume 29 Number 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This relevance-based account of commitment borrows from studies on epistemic vigilance and focuses on the hearer’s perspective. It suggests that commitment determines the strength of the contextual assumptions derived from utterance interpretation. In this contribution, I distinguish four kinds of commitment: speaker commitment, communicated commitment, attributed commitment and hearer commitment. The last two kinds of commitment are influenced by three main factors which will be considered in turn: linguistic markers, the hearer’s appraisal of the speaker and the salience of the communicated assumption in his cognitive environment. These claims translate into four experimentally testable predictions. This proposal echoes the current debate concerned with epistemic evaluation of information and aims to account for individuals’ commitment in terms of the relative strength of stored assumptions in their cognitive environment.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Birkelund, Merete , Nølke, Henning and Rita Therkelsen
    (eds) 2009La Polyphonie Linguistique . Special issue of Langue Française164.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. De Brabanter, Philippe and Patrick Dendale
    (eds) 2008Commitment. Issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/bjl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chafe, Wallace
    1986 “Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols , 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clément, Fabrice
    2006Les Mécanismes de la Crédulité. Genève: Librairie Droz. doi: 10.3917/droz.cleme.2006.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/droz.cleme.2006.01 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2010 “To trust or not to trust. Children’s social epistemology.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology1 (2). Special issue on Naive Epistemology. doi: 10.1007/s13164‑010‑0022‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-010-0022-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coates, Jennifer
    1983The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London, Canberra: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coltier, Danielle ; Dendale, Patrick and Philippe De Brabanter
    (eds) 2009 La Notion de Prise en Charge en Linguistique. Special issue of Langue Française162.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cornillie, Bert and Nicole Delbecque
    2008 “Speaker Commitment: Back to the Speaker. Evidence from Spanish Alternations.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics22: 37–62. doi: 10.1075/bjl.22.03cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.03cor [Google Scholar]
  10. Cornillie, Bert
    2009 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: On the Close Relationship between two Different Categories.” Functions of Language16 (1): 44–62. doi: 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  11. Dendale, Patrick and Danielle Coltier
    (eds) 2011La Prise en Charge Enonciative: Etudes Théoriques et Empiriques. Paris – Bruxelles: De Boeck – Duculot.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fitneva, Stanka, A
    2001 “Epistemic Marking and Reliability Judgements: Evidence from Bulgarian.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 401–420. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00010‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00010-2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hart, Christopher
    2011 “Legitimizing Assertions and the Logico-Rhetorical Module: Evidence and Epistemic Vigilance in Media Discourse on Immigration.” Discourse Studies13 (6): 751–769. doi: 10.1177/1461445611421360
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hassler, Gerda
    2010 “Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality and their Determination on a Deictic Basis: the Case of Romance Languages.” InLinguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by Gabriele Diewald and Elena Smirnova , 223–248. Berlin, New-York: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ifantidou, Elly
    2000 “Procedural encoding of explicatures by the Modern Greek particle taha .” InPragmatic Markers and Propositional attitude, ed. by Gisle Andersen and Thorstein Fretheim , 119–144. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.79.06ifa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.79.06ifa [Google Scholar]
  16. 2001Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jary, Mark
    2010Assertion. Basingstoke; New-York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230274617
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274617 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 “Assertion, Relevance and the Declarative Mood.” InProcedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal , Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern , 267–289. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. London. New York: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1995Linguistic Semantics: an Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810213 [Google Scholar]
  21. Marín-Arrese, Juana I
    2007 “Commitment and Subjectivity in the Discourse of Opinion Columns and Leading Articles, a Corpus Study.” RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada1: 82–98. (special issue titled Different Approaches to Newspaper Opinion Discourse, ed. by Isabel Alonso Belmonte (ed.)).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Marín-Arrese, Juana Isabel
    2011 “Epistemic Legitimizing Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies13 (6): 789–797. doi: 10.1177/1461445611421360c
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360c [Google Scholar]
  23. Mascaro, Olivier and Dan Sperber
    2009 “The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance towards Deception.” Cognition112: 367–380. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  24. Matlock, Teenie
    1989 “Metaphor and the Grammaticalization of Evidentials.” Berkeley Linguistics Society15: 215–225. doi: 10.3765/bls.v15i0.1751
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v15i0.1751 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mazzarella, Diana
    2013 ““Optimal Relevance” as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic Vigilance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics25: 20–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Moeschler, Jacques
    2013 “Is a Speaker-Based Pragmatics Possible? Or How Can a Hearer Infer a Speaker’s Commitment?” Journal of Pragmatics43: 84–97. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.019 [Google Scholar]
  27. Morency, Patrick , Oswald, Steve and Louis de Saussure
    2008 “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics22: 197–220. doi: 10.1075/bjl.22.10mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.10mor [Google Scholar]
  28. Nølke, Henning
    1994 La Dilution Linguistique des Responsabilités: Essai de Description Polyphonique des Marqueurs Evidentiels il semble que et il paraît que. InLes Sources du Savoir et leurs Marques Linguistiques, ed. by Patrick Dendale and Liliane Tasmowski , 84–94. Montrouge: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nuyts, Jan
    2001Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2006 “Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues.” InThe Expression of Modality, ed. by William Frawley , 1–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Oswald, Steve
    2011 “From Interpretation to Consent: Arguments, Beliefs and Meaning.” Discourse Studies13 (6): 806–814. doi: 10.1177/1461445611421360e
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360e [Google Scholar]
  32. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2012 “Epistemic Vigilance, Cautious Optimism and Sophisticated Understanding.” Research in Language10 (4): 365–386. doi: 10.2478/v10015‑011‑0040‑y
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0040-y [Google Scholar]
  33. Palmer, Frank Robert
    1986Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Papafragou, Anna
    2000aModality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2000b “On Speech-Act Modality.” Journal of Pragmatics32: 519–538. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00062‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00062-4 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2006 “Epistemic Modality and Truth Conditions.” Lingua116: 1688–1702. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pietrandrea, Paola
    2008 “ Certamente and Sicuramente. Encoding Dynamic and Discursive Aspects of Commitment in Italian.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics22: 221–246. doi: 10.1075/bjl.22.11pie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.11pie [Google Scholar]
  38. Saussure, Louis de
    2011 Discourse Analysis, Cognition and Evidentials. Discourse Studies13 (6): 781–788. doi: 10.1177/1461445611421360b
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360b [Google Scholar]
  39. Sperber, Dan , Clément, Fabrice , Heintz, Christophe , Mascaro, Olivier , Mercier, Hugo ; Origgi, Gloria and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language25 (4): 359–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Traugott, Elizabeth
    2003 “Approaching Modality from the Perspective of Relevance Theory.” Language Sciences25 (6): 657–669. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(03)00017‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00017-2 [Google Scholar]
  42. Traugott, Elizabeth and Richard B. Dasher
    2007Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Willett, Thomas
    1988 “A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language12: 51–97. doi: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  44. Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
    1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua90: 1–25. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wilson, Deirdre
    2011 “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” InProcedural meaning: problems and perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal , Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern , 3–31. Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025005
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025005 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2012 “Modality and the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” InRelevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Walaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska , 23–43. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): commitment; epistemic modality; epistemic vigilance; evidentiality; relevance theory
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error