1887
image of Evidential propositions as situational scenarios
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the interpretation of evidential propositions using insights from the (LCM), including its recent classification of situational scenarios (cognitive models) into three sub-types: descriptive, attitudinal and regulatory. The aim is to show that processing the meaning of an evidential proposition can require profiling parts of all three types of situational scenarios– a process that is activated (at the lexical-constructional, discourse and implicational levels) by such cognitive operations as , and . This is consistent with the principles of according to which the contextual information required for interpreting the speaker’s explicit/implicit meaning (i.e., explicating/implicating it) is not limited to a particular knowledge type or source (encyclopaedic, socio-cultural, religious and so on). The study, thus, complements work on evidentiality by going beyond its features, markers and behaviour in discourse to focus on the interpretation of evidential propositions in connection with cognitive models and operations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00163.red
2023-10-19
2025-02-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2007) Information source and evidentiality: What can we conclude?Rivista di Linguistica, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AnderBois, S.
    (2014) On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. InT. Snider, S. D’Antonio & M. Weigand (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT (pp.–). Linguistic Society of America. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/54
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Asudeh, A., & Toivonen, I.
    (2017) A modular approach to evidentiality. InM. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG’17 Conference (pp.–). University of Konstanz: CSLI Publications. https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/LFG/LFG-2017/index.shtml
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe, W., & Nichols, J.
    (1986) Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cornillie, B.
    (2009) Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship of two different categories. Functions of Language, (), –. 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  8. (2010) An interactional approach to epistemic and evidential adverbs. InG. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages (pp.–). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110223972.309
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972.309 [Google Scholar]
  9. De Haan, F.
    (2005) Encoding speaker perspective: Evidentials. InZ. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.72.18haa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.72.18haa [Google Scholar]
  10. Del Campo Martínez, N., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2012) A constructionist approach to illocution: The case of orders. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, , –. 10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20129254
    https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20129254 [Google Scholar]
  11. Demonte, V., & Fernández-Soriano, O.
    (2014) Evidentiality and illocutionary force: Spanish matrix que at the syntax-pragmatics interface. InA. Dufter & A. O. De Toledo (Eds.), Left sentence peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, variationist, and typological perspectives [Linguistics Today Series] (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.214.13dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.214.13dem [Google Scholar]
  12. Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L.
    (2001) Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00005‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00005-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Faller, M.
    (2002) Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Dissertation.
  14. (2012) Evidential scalar implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy, (), –. 10.1007/s10988‑012‑9119‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9119-8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.–). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2020) The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation: A cognitive linguistic perspective. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hoye, L. F.
    (2008) Evidentiality in discourse: A pragmatic and empirical account. InJ. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp.–). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199024.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199024.151 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ifantidou, E.
    (2001) Evidentials and relevance [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 86]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Foley, M. A., & Kim, J. K.
    (1982) Pictures and images: Spatial and temporal information compared. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, (), –. 10.3758/BF03330029
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330029 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S.
    (1993) Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, , –. 10.1037/0033‑2909.114.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, (), –. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive g rammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  28. Leech, G. N.
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Murray, S. E.
    (2010) Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. Rutgers University PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2017) The semantics of evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mushin, I.
    (2001) Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.87
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  32. Newby, G. D.
    (2003) Folded time: a socio-rhetorical analysis of Qur’anic and early Islamic apocalyptic discourse. InV. K. Robbins, D. B. Gowler, L. G. Bloomquist & D. F. Watson (Eds.), The fabrics of discourse: Essays in honor of Vernon K. Robins (pp.–). Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Palmer, F. R.
    (1986 [2001]) Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Panther, K., & Thornburg, L.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  35. Radden, G.
    (2002) How metonymic are metaphors?InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  36. Reda, G.
    (2014) The use of the verb “to show”: A non-linear continuum of meanings. Journal of Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.17791/jcs.2014.15.2.187
    https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2014.15.2.187 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2020) Echoing-contrast combination in non-ironic constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.00067.red
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00067.red [Google Scholar]
  38. (2023) Conceptual development and change: The role of echoing and contrast as cognitive operations. InN. Rezaei (Ed.), Brain, decision making and mental health (pp.–). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑15959‑6_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15959-6_5 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rooryck, J. E. C. V.
    (2001) State of the article: Evidentiality. GLOT International, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2020) The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. InA. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative thought and language (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.12rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.12rui [Google Scholar]
  42. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A.
    (2007) Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. InI. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp.–). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198843.2.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198843.2.95 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sbisà, M.
    (2014) Evidentiality and illocutions. Intercultural Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0021 [Google Scholar]
  45. Searle, J. R.
    (1975) Indirect speech acts. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp.–). New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004 [Google Scholar]
  46. Smirnova, A., & Iliev, R.
    (2014) Evidentiality in language and cognition: The view from construal level theory. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Searle, J. R.
    (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ünal, E., & Papafragou, A.
    (2020) Relations between language and cognition: Evidentiality and sources of knowledge. Topics in Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1111/tops.12355
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12355 [Google Scholar]
  50. Viberg, Å.
    (1983) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  51. Whitt, R.
    (2009) Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs. Lingua, (), –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Whitt, R. J.
    (2011) (Inter) Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015 [Google Scholar]
  53. Willett, T.
    (1988) A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, (), –. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00163.red
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00163.red
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: evidentiality ; metonymy ; echoing ; reasoning schemas ; contrast ; the LCM ; situational scenarios
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