1887
Volume 14, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Evidentiality is a linguistic category that comprises forms and meanings related to the source of information in utterances, the use of which may impact judgments about the degree of certainty expressed by a speaker. The main dichotomy is first-hand (direct) vs. second-hand (indirect) evidence. This distinction is grammaticalised in Japanese only, though certain related meanings can be expressed in English lexically or constructionally. The relevant forms in both languages also function as indirectness-for-politeness markers. We used a judgments elicitation task and found that statements with Japanese evidentials (both first- and second-hand) and with English markers of uncertainty lead to judgments of lower certainty than the statements without the evidential forms and meanings for the majority, but not for all speakers. In addition, monolingual and bilingual usage in both languages has parallels such that these two typologically distinct languages appear closer and certainty judgments by their speakers similar.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20089.fil
2023-05-30
2024-06-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2002Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (ed.) 2018The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arslan, Seckin, Roelien Bastiaanse, and Claudia Felser
    2015 “Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality.” Frontiers in Psychology61: 1387. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387 [Google Scholar]
  4. Berk-Seligson, Susan
    1990The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1987 Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?Journal of Pragmatics11(2): 131–146. 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90192‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cenoz, Jasone
    1995 “American vs. European requests: Do speakers use the same strategies?” Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning (Urbana, IL, March 1995).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Csató, Eva A.
    2009 “Rendering evidential meanings in Turkish and Swedish.” InTurcological Letters to Bernt Brendemoen, ed. byEva A. Csató, Gunvald Ims, Joakim Parslow, Finn Thiesen and Emel Türker, 77–86. Oslo: Novus Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fausey, Caitlin and Lera Boroditsky
    2010 “Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review171: 644–650. 10.3758/PBR.17.5.644
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2011 “Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review181: 150–157. 10.3758/s13423‑010‑0021‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5 [Google Scholar]
  11. Filipović, Luna
    2011 “Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: Bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events.” International Journal of Bilingualism15 (4): 466–485. 10.1177/1367006911403062
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403062 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013a “The role of language in legal contexts: A forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint.” InLaw and Language: Current Legal Issues (15), ed. byMichael Freeman and Fiona Smith, 328–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0167
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0167 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2013b “Constructing causation in language and memory: Implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law20 (1): 1–19. 10.1558/ijsll.v20i1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v20i1.1 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2016 “May vs. Might in the judgement on certainty: The difference between L1 and L2 English speakers.” Applied Linguistic Review7 (2): 181–201. 10.1515/applirev‑2016‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-0008 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2017a “Applied Language Typology: Applying typological insights in practice.” Languages in Contrast17 (2): 255–278. 10.1075/lic.17.2.05fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.2.05fil [Google Scholar]
  16. Filipović, L.
    2017b “Applying language typology: Practical applications of research on typological contrasts between languages.” InMotion and Space across Languages and Applications [Human Cognitive Processing Series], ed. byIraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 399–418. Amsterdam. John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.59.16fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.16fil [Google Scholar]
  17. Filipović, Luna
    2018 “Speaking in L2 but thinking in L1: Language-specific effects on memory for causation events in English and Spanish.” International Journal of Bilingualism22 (2): 180–198. 10.1177/1367006916661636
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916661636 [Google Scholar]
  18. Filipović, Luna and John A. Hawkins
    2013 “Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model.” Linguistics51 (1): 145–176. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Filipović, Luna
    2019Bilingualism in Action: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108602235
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108602235 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2022 “First language versus second language effect on memory for motion events: The role of language type and proficiency.” International Journal of Bilingualism26(1): 65–81. 10.1177/13670069211022863
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211022863 [Google Scholar]
  21. Filipović, Luna and John A. Hawkins
    2019 “The Complex Adaptive System Principles model for bilingualism: Language interactions within and across bilingual minds.” International Journal of Bilingualism23(6): 1223–1248. 10.1177/1367006918781076
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918781076 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fukushima, Saeko
    1990 Offers and requests: Performance by Japanese learners of English. World Englishes9 (3): 317–325. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1990.tb00269.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1990.tb00269.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Grainger, Karen and Sara Mills
    2016Directness and Indirectness across Cultures. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137340399
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137340399 [Google Scholar]
  24. Grice, Paul H.
    1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review661: 377–88. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hawkins, John A.
    2004Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2014Cross-linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hayatsu, Mieko
    1988 “Rashi-i to yoo-da [Rashi-i and yoo-da].” Nihongogaku7(4): 46–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva
    2005Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614132
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hijazo-Gascón, Alberto
    2019 “Translating accurately or sounding natural? The interpreters’ challenges due to semantic typology and the interpreting process.” Pragmatics and Society10(1): 73–96. 10.1075/ps.00016.hij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00016.hij [Google Scholar]
  31. Ishida, Kazutoh
    2006 “How can you be so certain? Do use of hearsay evidentials by English-speaking learners of Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics381: 1281–1304. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  32. Johanson, L.
    2003 ‘Evidentiality in Turkic.’ InStudies in Evidentiality, ed. byAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M. W. Dixon, 273–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.54.15joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.15joh [Google Scholar]
  33. Koster, Dietha and Teresa Cadierno
    2018 “Is perception of placement universal? A mixed methods perspective on linguistic relativity.” Lingua2071: 23–37. 10.1016/j.lingua.2018.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kamada, Osamu
    1990 “Reporting messages in Japanese as a second language.” InOn Japanese and How to Teach It, ed. byOsamu Kamada and Wesley M. Jacobsen (eds.), 224–245. Tokyo: The Japan Times.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kamio, Akio
    1994 “The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics211: 67–100. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90047‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1995 “Territory of information in English and Japanese and psychological utterances.” Journal of Pragmatics24(3): 235–264. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00064‑L
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00064-L [Google Scholar]
  37. 1997Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kikuchi, Yasuto
    2000 “Yoo-da to rashi-i – sooda, darō to no hikaku o fukumete [Yoo-da and rashi-i – including comparison with sooda and darō].” Kokugogaku51(1): 46–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Makino, Seiichi and Michio Tsutsui
    1989A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Matsumura, Tomomi
    2017 “The use of evidentials in hearsay contexts in Japanese and English.” MA dissertation, Portland State University. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5167&context=open_access_etds
  41. Morita, Yoshiyuki
    1989Kiso Nihongo Jiten. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mushin, Ilana
    2001Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.87
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  43. Narrog, Heiko
    2009Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.109
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.109 [Google Scholar]
  44. Narrog, Heiko and Wenjiang Yang
    2018 “Evidentiality in Japanese.” InOxford Handbook of Evidentiality, ed. byAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 709–724. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.34
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.34 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ohta, Amy S.
    1991 “Evidentiality and politeness in Japanese.” Issues in Applied Linguistics2(2): 211–238. 10.5070/L422005143
    https://doi.org/10.5070/L422005143 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ogiermann, Eva
    2009 “Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests.” Journal of Politeness Research-Language Behaviour Culture51: 189–216. 10.1515/JPLR.2009.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.011 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rose, Kenneth R.
    1996 “American English, Japanese, and directness: More than stereotypes.” JALT Journal18 (1): 67–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Searle, John
    1969Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  49. Slobin, Dan I.
    2016 ‘Thinking for speaking and the construction of evidentiality in language contact.” InExploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape: Essays in Honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan [Studies in Language Companion Series], ed. byMine Güven, Didar Akar, Balkiz Öztürk, and Meltem Kelepir, 105–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.175.07slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.175.07slo [Google Scholar]
  50. Tosun, Sumeyra, Jyotsna Vaid and L. Geraci
    2013 “Does obligatory linguistic marking of source of evidence affect source memory? A Turkish/English investigation.” Journal of Memory and Language69 (2): 121–134. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  51. Tosun, Sumeyra and Luna Filipović
    2022 “Lost in translation, apparently: Bilingual language processing of evidentiality in a Turkish–English translation and judgment task.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition1–16. 10.1017/S1366728922000141
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000141 [Google Scholar]
  52. Trent, Nobuko
    1997 “Linguistic coding of evidentiality in Japanese spoken discourse and Japanese politeness.” PhD Dissertation, University of Austin Texas. www.nobukotrent.net/NobukoTrentDissertation1997.pdf
  53. 1998 “Cross-cultural discourse pragmatics: Speaking about hearsay in English and Japanese.” Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education3(2): 1–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Trujillo, Jenny
    2003 The difference in resulting judgments when descriptions use high-manner versus neutral-manner verbs,’ Senior Dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
  55. Whorf, Benjamin-Lee
    1956Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20089.fil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20089.fil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): certainty; English; evidentiality; indirectness; Japanese; judgments; L1; L2; translation
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