1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Belgian Journal of Linguistics
  4. Volume 29, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 29 Number 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The article deals with tip effects between evidential and epistemic components in the meaning potential of evidential markers in Bulgarian, the focus being on sentential adverbs with inferential functions. We justify (and start with) the following assumptions: (i) for any unit we should distinguish its stable semantic meaning from its pragmatic potential which can be favored (or disfavored) by appropriate discourse conditions; (ii) there is a “trade off” between evidential and epistemic meaning components that are related to each other on the basis of mutual or one-sided implicatures; (iii) one-sided implicatures occur with certain hearsay markers whose epistemic implicatures can be captured as Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCIs). On this basis, we show that (iv) GCIs work also with inferential markers; they can be classified depending on which component (the inferential or the epistemic one) can be downgraded more easily. A crucial factor favoring the inferential meaning is a perceptual basis of the inference. In general, (v) the more complicated the reconstruction of the cognitive (or communicative) basis leading to an inference, the clearer the epistemic function emerges while the evidential function remains in the background, and vice versa. The study is corpus-based and also includes an attempt at classifying micro- and macro-contextual conditions that (dis)favor a highlighting of the evidential function.

© 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.29.08wie
2015-12-30
2024-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/bjl.29.08wie
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BC = Brown Corpus of the Institute for Bulgarian Language
    .
  2. Barierata ‘The barrier’ = Vežinov, P
    (1987): Barierata. Belijat gušter. Ezernoto momče, Bălgarski pisatel, Sofia.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BG (Belijat gušter ‘The white lizard’) = Vežinov, P
    (1987): Barierata. Belijat gušter. Ezernoto momče, Bălgarski pisatel, Sofia.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Dimitrov, B
    (2005): Sedemte drevni civilizacii v Bălgarija. Izbrani ljubimi knigi ‘The seven ancient civilizations in Bulgaria. Selected favoured books’, Fondacija Kom, Sofia.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. EM (Ezernoto momče ‘The lake boy’ ) = Vežinov, P
    (1987): Barierata. Belijat gušter. Ezernoto momče, Bălgarski pisatel, Sofia.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. FD = Kisjov St.
    : Friedrich Dürrenmatt, www.litclub.bg/library/nbpr/kisiov/dyrenmat.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Gălăbicata ‘The female pigeon’ = Makaveev, V
    .: Gălăbicata, liternet.bg/publish9/vmakaveev/gylybicata.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  8. HO = Stankov I
    .: Heroinova odiseja ‘A heroin odyssey’, chitanka.info/text/416
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Naslednici ‘Heirs’ = Ivanov, I
    .: Naslednici, chitanka.info/text/386-naslednitsi
     [Google Scholar]
  10. RnR = Pavlova, E
    .: Rajat na rokendrola (2) ‘The paradise of rock & roll’, chitanka.info/text/1885/2
  11. SzK = Lazarov, L
    .: Spomeni za komunizma ‘Memories of communism’, de-zorata.de/sites/oshte-info/oshte.info/004/00104/08/2608/04.htm
  12. SnL = Dukova, B
    .: Sărceto ne lăže. Dara ‘The heart does not lie. Dara’, www.slovo.bg/showwork.php3?AuID=98&WorkID=2312&Level=2
  13. Taksi = Petrov, K
    .: Taksi ‘Taxi’, liternet.bg/publish5/kpetrov/taksi.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y
    2003 “Evidentiality in typological perspective.” InStudies in Evidentiality, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.), 1–31. Amsterdam: Philadelphia. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54.04aik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.04aik [Google Scholar]
  15. Aikhenvald, A.Y
    2004 Evidentiality. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ariel, Mira
    2008 Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  17. van der Auwera, Johan and Vladimir A. Plungian
    1998 “Modality’s semantic map.” Linguistic Typology2 (1): 79–124. doi: 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 [Google Scholar]
  18. Botne, Robert
    1997 “Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Lega.” Studies in Language21: 509–532. doi: 10.1075/sl.21.3.03bot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.3.03bot [Google Scholar]
  19. Boye, Kasper
    2006 Epistemic meaning: a cross-linguistic study. Unpublished dissertation. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2010 “Evidence for what? Evidentiality and scope.” InDatabase on evidentiality markers in European languages (= STUF 63(4)), ed. by Björn Wiemer and Katerina Stathi , 290–307.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Boye, Kasper and Peter Harder
    2009 “Evidentiality. Linguistic categories and grammaticalization.” Functions of Language16 (1): 9–43. doi: 10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy [Google Scholar]
  22. Celle, Agnès
    . “Hearsay adverbs and modality.” InModality in English (Theory and Description) ed. by R. Salkie , P. Busuttil and J. van der Auwera , 269–293. Berlin: New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Chafe, Wallace L
    1986 “Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols , 261–272. Norwood, NJ.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cornillie, Bert
    2007 Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)Auxiliaries. A Cognitive Functional Approach. Berlin, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. de Haan, Ferdinand
    2005 “Encoding speaker perspective: Evidentials.” InLinguistic Diversity and Language Theories, ed. by Z. Frajzyngier , A. Hodges and D.S. Rood . 379–397. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.72.18haa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.72.18haa [Google Scholar]
  27. 2009 “On the Status of ‘Epistemic’ Must. ” InStudies on English Modality3, ed. by R. Facchinetti and A. Tsangalidis , 261–284. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Faller, Martina
    2006 Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Manchester (unpubl. ms.).
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Guentchéva, Zlatka
    1996 “Le médiatif en bulgare.” InL’énonciation médiatisée, ed. by Zlatka Guentchéva , 45–70. Louvain, Paris: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Halliday, MichaelA.K
    1999 “The notion of “context” in language education.” InText and context in Functional Linguistics, ed. by M. Ghadessy , 1–24. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.169.04hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.169.04hal [Google Scholar]
  31. Hengeveld, Kees
    2006 Evidentiality and reportativity in Functional Discourse Grammar, Nijmegen: Radboud University (unp. ms. of presentation).
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hennemann, Anja
    2012 “The epistemic and evidential use of Spanish modal adverbs and verbs of cognitive attitude.” Folia Linguistica46 (1): 133–170. doi: 10.1515/flin.2012.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2012.5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Huang Yan
    2007 Pragmatics. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kampf, Veronica and Björn Wiemer
    2011a “Inventarisierung und Analyse lexikalischer Evidenzialitätsmarker des Bulgarischen: Adverbien, Partikeln und Prädikative (Part I).” Zeitschrift für Balkanologie47 (1): 46–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2011b “Inventarisierung und Analyse lexikalischer Evidenzialitätsmarker des Bulgarischen: Adverbien, Partikeln und Prädikative (Part II).” Zeitschrift für Balkanologie47 (2): 182–201.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kehayov, Petar
    2008 “Interactions between grammatical evidentials and lexical markers of epistemicity and evidentiality: a case study of Bulgarian and Estonian.” InLexikalische Evidenzialitätsmarker im Slavischen (= Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 72.), ed. by Björn Wiemer and Vladimir A. Plungjan , 165–201. Vienna.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Korytkowska, Małgorzata
    2000 “Formy narrativu w Biblii bulgarskiej XX wieku.” Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskej36: 179–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lampert, Günther
    2009 “I Know Not Seems”: Markers of Fictivity and Factivity in Shakespeare’s Hamlet.” In“My age is as a lusty winter” – Essays in Honour of Peter Erlebach and Thomas Michael Stein, ed. by Bernhard Reitz , 249–259. Trier.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lampert, Günther and Martina Lampert
    2010 “Where does evidentiality reside? Notes on (alleged) limiting cases: seem and be like .” InDatabase on evidentiality markers in European languages, ed. by Björn Wiemer and Katerina Stathi , STUF63(4): 308–321.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Letuchiy, Alexandr
    2010 “Syntactic change and shifts in evidential meanings: five Russian units.” InDatabase on evidentiality markers in European languages, ed. by Björn Wiemer and Katerina Stathi , STUF63(4): 358–369.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Levinson, Stephen
    2000 Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lichtenberk, František
    1991 “Semantic Change and Heterosemy in Grammaticalization.” Language67: 475–509. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0009 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lindstedt, Jouko
    2010 “Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian.” InMood in the languages of Europe, ed. by B. Rothstein and R. Thieroff , 409–421. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.120.23lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.120.23lin [Google Scholar]
  44. Lyons, John
    1977 Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Nicolova, RuselinaL
    2008 Bălgarska gramatika. Morfologija, Sofia.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Olbertz, Hella
    2007 “Dizque in Mexican Spanish: the subjectification of reportative meaning”, Rivista di Linguistica19 (1): 151–172 (= special issue Evidentiality between lexicon and grammar, ed. by Mario Squartini).
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Palmer, Frank R
    1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2001 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (revised edition) doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  49. Papafragou, Anna
    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]
  50. Plungian, Vladimir A
    2001 “The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 349–357. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00006‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2010 “Types of verbal evidentiality marking: an overview.” InLinguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by Gabriele Diewald and Elena Smirnova , 15–58. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Portner, Paul
    2009 Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Sonnenhauser, Barbara
    2012 “Auxiliar-Variation und Textstruktur im Bulgarischen.” Die Welt der Slaven57: 351–379.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Squartini, Mario
    2001 “The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance.” Studies in Language25 (2): 297–334. doi: 10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ [Google Scholar]
  55. 2008 “Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian.” Linguistics46 (5): 917–947. doi: 10.1515/LING.2008.030
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.030 [Google Scholar]
  56. Wiemer, Björn
    2006 “Particles, parentheticals, conjunctions and prepositions as evidentiality markers in contemporary Polish (A first exploratory study).” Studies in Polish Linguistics3: 5–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Wiemer, Björn and Anna Socka
    2010 “How to do contrastive semantics with propositional modifiers: the case of hearsay adverbs.” Talk given at the conference Re-thinking synonymy . Helsinki, 28–30 October 2010.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Wiemer, Björn and Katerina Stathi
    2010 “The database of evidential markers in European languages. A bird’s eye view of the conception of the data base (the template and problems hidden beneath it).” InDatabase on evidentiality markers in European languages, ed. by Björn Wiemer and Katerina Stathi , STUF63(4): 275–289.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Willet, 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]
  60. Xrakovskij, V.S
    2005 “Ėvidencial’nost‘ i ėpistemičeskaja modal‘nost.” InModality in Slavonic Languages (New Perspectives), ed. by Björn Hansen and Petr Karlík , 87–94, München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Yule, George
    1996 Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.29.08wie
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Bulgarian; default readings; discourse (context) types; epistemic modality; evidentiality; generalized conversational implicature; sentential adverbs

Most Cited

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