1887
Volume 29 Number 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Jakobson (1957) bases the analysis of mood on a three-part structure that crucially involves two participant variables. Although the definition of evidentiality in Jakobson (1957) differs in some fundamental ways, it also allows for the explication of a participant structure inherent in evidential meanings. In this paper I argue that by exploring the interaction between these participant structures in multiple-perspective constructions and in reported speech, the framework proposed in Jakobson (1957) enables us to systematically examine phenomena that are typically assumed to arise in evidential expressions as pragmatic effects, particularly ‘commitment effects’ and evidential interpretations of modals. I propose that this approach present us with a principled account of stance meanings (Du Bois 2007), more particularly, of the semantic and pragmatic interaction between modal and evidential meanings, based on their semantic structure.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.29.09spr
2015-12-30
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A.Y
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2015 “Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories.” Linguistic Typology19 (2): 239–277. doi: 10.1515/lingty‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronson, H.I
    1991 “Towards a typology of verbal categories.” InNew Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, ed. by L.R. Waugh and S. Rudy , 111–131. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.49.09aro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.49.09aro [Google Scholar]
  4. Buchstaller, I
    2011 “Quotations across generations: A multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory7 (1): 59–92. doi: 10.1515/cllt.2011.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2011.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2014Quotatives: New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications. Oxford etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Coate, H.H.J
    1966 “The Rai and the third eye: North-West Australian beliefs.” Oceania37 (2): 93–123. doi: 10.1002/j.1834‑4461.1966.tb01790.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-4461.1966.tb01790.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Cornillie, B
    2009 “Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories.” Functions of Language16 (1): 9–43. doi: 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  8. Diewald, G. and E. Smirnova
    2010 “Introduction: Evidentiality in European languages: the lexical-grammatical distinction.” InLinguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by G. Diewald and E. Smirnova , 1–14. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110223972
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972 [Google Scholar]
  9. Du Bois, J.W
    2007 “The stance triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse, ed. by R. Englebretson , 139–182. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans, N
    2006 “View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions.” InProceedings of the thirty-first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by R.T. Cover and Y. Kim , 93–120. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2012 “Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach.” InCanonical Morphology and Syntax, ed. by D. Brown , M. Chumakina , and G.G. Corbett , 66–98. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Faller, M
    2012 “Evidential scalar implicatures.” Linguistics and Philosophy35: 285–312. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑012‑9119‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9119-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fludernik, M
    1989 “Jespersen’s shifters: Reflections on deixis and subjectivity in language.” Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft15–16: 97–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, E
    1974Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haßler, G
    2002 “Evidentiality and reported speech in Romance languages.” InReported Discourse, A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, ed. by T. Güldemann and M. von Roncador , 143–172. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.52.11has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.11has [Google Scholar]
  16. Horrack, K
    2014 “He jumped off the bridge CAUS she told him to: Indirect speech as a means of expressing indirect causation in Wubuy.” InSelected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, ed. by L. Gawne and J. Vaughan ,. 211–230. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Irvine, J.T
    1996 “Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles.” InNatural Histories of Discourse, ed. by M. Silverstein and G. Urban , 131–159. Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jakobson, R
    1957Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jespersen, O
    1922Language: Its Nature Development and Origin. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kockelman, P
    2004 “Stance and subjectivity.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology14 (2): 127–150. doi: 10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.127
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.127 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511711893
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511711893 [Google Scholar]
  22. McGregor, W.B
    2007 “A desiderative complement construction in Warrwa.” InLanguage description, history and development, ed. by J. Siegel , J. Lynch and D. Eades , 27–40. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cll.30.08mcg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.30.08mcg [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011The Nyulnyul language of Dampier Land, Western Australia, Volume 1 and 2. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mel’čuk, I
    1991 “Toward a universal calculus of inflectional categories: On Roman Jakobson’s trail.” InNew Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, ed. by L.R. Waugh and S. Rudy , 85–109. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.49.08mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.49.08mel [Google Scholar]
  25. Nekes, H. and E.A. Worms
    1953Australian languages. Freiburg: Anthropos Institut.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Nuyts, J. , P. Byloo and J. Diepeveen
    2010 “On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten .” Journal of Pragmatics42: 16–34. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Potts, C
    2005The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2007a The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics33 (2): 165–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2007b Into the conventional-implicature dimension. Philosophy Compass2 (4): 665–679. doi: 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2007.00089.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00089.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Rumsey, A
    1990 Wording, meaning and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist92 (2): 346–361. doi: 10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060 [Google Scholar]
  31. San Roque, L
    2008An introduction to Duna grammar. Ph. D. thesis, The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2010 “Origo seeks ego for open relationship: Some issues of perspective and evidential morphology.” Presentation held at theAustralian National University, 2nd July 2010.
  33. San Roque, L. and H. Bergqvist
    (eds.) 2015 Epistemic marking in typological perspective, special issue ofSTUF – Language Typology and Universals68.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. San Roque, L. , S. Floyd , and E. Norcliffe
    . Forthcoming. “Evidentiality and interrogativity.” Lingua.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. San Roque, L. and R. Loughnane
    2012 The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology16, 111–167. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0003 [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith, C.S
    2010 “Accounting for subjectivity (point of view).” InText, Time, and Context, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, ed by R.P. Meier , H. Aristar-Dry , and E. Destruel , 371–393. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Speas, M
    2004 “Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features.” Lingua114: 255–276. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00030‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00030-5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Spronck, S
    2012 “Minds divided, speaker attitudes in quotatives.” InQuotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives, ed. by I. Buchstaller and I. Van Alphen , 71–116. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.15.07spr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.07spr [Google Scholar]
  39. 2015 “Refracting views: How to construct complex perspective in reported speech and thought in Ungarinyin.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals68 (2): 165–185. doi: 10.1515/stuf‑2015‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2015-0009 [Google Scholar]
  40. . Forthcoming. “Evidential fictive interaction in Ungarinyin and Russian.” InThe Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction ed. by E. Pascual and S. Sandler . Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Vandelanotte, L
    2006 “Speech or thought representation and subjectification, or on the need to think twice.” Belgian journal of linguistics20: 137–168. doi: 10.1075/bjl.20.10van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.20.10van [Google Scholar]
  42. Verstraete, J.-C
    2001 “Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system.” Journal of Pragmatics33 (10): 1505–1528. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00029‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00029-7 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2005 “Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain.” Journal of Pragmatics37: 1401–1418. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  44. von Fintel, K. and A.S. Gillies
    2008 “CIA leaks.” Philosophical Review117 (1): 77–98. doi: 10.1215/00318108‑2007‑025
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-025 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wierzbicka, A
    1974 “The function of direct and indirect discourse.” Papers in Linguistics7 (3): 267–307. doi: 10.1080/08351817409370375
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817409370375 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilkins, D.P
    1986 “Particle/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda).” Journal of Pragmatics10: 575–596. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(86)90015‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90015-9 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.29.09spr
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): pragmatics , reported speech , Roman O. Jakobson , semantics and stance
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