1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 48, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 48, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper seeks to answer three questions: (1) What is the difference between grammatical and lexical indications of information source? (2) What qualifies an element for grammaticalization as an evidential? (3) How can we identify grammatical evidentials and instances of evidential grammaticalization? The answers proposed are as follows: (1) The difference between grammatical and lexical indications of information source is a difference between indications conventionalized as discourse secondary and indications conventionalized as potentially discourse primary. (2) A candidate for grammaticalization as an evidential must (i) have propositional scope, (ii) belong in the conceptual domain of information source, (iii) be frequent enough to pass the threshold for conventionalization, and (iv) be discourse secondary, but not by convention. (3) Grammatical evidentials and instances of evidential grammaticalization can be identified based on focusablity, addressability and modifiability.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23001.boy
2023-11-21
2024-10-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.23001.boy
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2007 Information source and evidentiality: What can we conclude?Italian Journal of Linguistics191. 209–227.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2018 Evidentiality: The framework. InAlexandra Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 1–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergqvist, Henrik & Grzech, Karolina
    2023 The role of pragmatics in the definition of evidentiality. STUF – Language Typology and Universals76(1). 1–30. 10.1515/stuf‑2023‑2004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2023-2004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennis, Hans & Roelien Bastiaanse
    2018 Productie en begrip van voorzetsels bij sprekers met agrammatische en vloeiende afasie [Production and comprehension of prepositions in speakers with agrammatic and fluent aphasia]. Nederlandse Taalkunde2311. 3–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennis, Hans, Ronald Prins & Jan Vermeulen
    1983 Lexical-semantic versus syntactic disorders in aphasia: The processing of prepositions. Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwerenschap401. 1–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bisang, Walter
    2010 Word classes. InJae J. Son (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 280–302. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Boye, Kasper
    2010a Evidence for what? Evidentiality and scope. InBjörn Wiemer & Katerina Stathi (eds.), Database on evidentiality markers in European languages. Special issue of: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung63(4). 290–307. 10.1524/stuf.2010.0023
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2010.0023 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010b Reference and clausal perception-verb complements. Linguistics48(2). 391–430. 10.1515/ling.2010.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.013 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010c Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical status. InKasper Boye & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language usage and language structure, 73–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219180.1.73
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219180.1.73 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2012 Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219036
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219036 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 Evidentiality: The notion and the term. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 261–272. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.13
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.13 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2023a Grammaticalization as conventionalization of discourse secondary status: Deconstructing the lexical-grammatical continuum. Transactions of the Philological Society121(2). 270–292. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12265
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12265 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2023b Propositions and States-of-Affairs: A cognitive linguistic approach. InJutta M. Hartmann & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergelich / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research (Studien zur Deuschen Sprache 84), 85–114. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Boye, Kasper, & Roelien Bastiaanse
    2018 Grammatical versus lexical words in theory and aphasia: Integrating linguistics and neurolinguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics3(1): 29. 10.5334/gjgl.436
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.436 [Google Scholar]
  16. Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder
    2012 A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language88(1). 1–44. 10.1353/lan.2012.0020
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0020 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2021 Complement-taking predicates, parentheticals and grammaticalization. Language Sciences881, 101416. 10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101416
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101416 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bybee, Joan L.
    2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4). 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Campbell, Lyle
    2001 What’s wrong with grammaticalization?Language Sciences23(2–3). 113–161. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00019‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00019-X [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996 Using language. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  22. Christensen, Marie H., Line B. Kristensen, Nicoline M. Vinther & Kasper Boye
    2021 Grammar is background in sentence processing. Language and Cognition13(1). 128–153. 10.1017/langcog.2020.30
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.30 [Google Scholar]
  23. Comrie, Bernard
    1976 Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspects and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Danchev, Andrei & Merja Kytö
    1994 The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. InDieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 59–77. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110879599.59
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879599.59 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dik, Simon C. & Kees Hengeveld
    1991 The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of perception-verb complements. Linguistics291. 231–259. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.2.231
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.2.231 [Google Scholar]
  26. Emonds, Joseph E.
    1985 A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110808513
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808513 [Google Scholar]
  27. Givón, Talmy
    1979 On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2018 On understanding grammar. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.213
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.213 [Google Scholar]
  29. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
    1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  30. Haspelmath, Martin
    1993 A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110884210
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884210 [Google Scholar]
  31. Heine, Bernd & Mechtild Reh
    1984 Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeier
    1991 Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hengeveld, Kees
    2011 The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. InHeiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0047 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 On some principles of grammaticization. InElizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol.11, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  35. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ishkhanyan, Byurakn, Halima Sahraoui, Peter Harder, Jesper Mogensen & Kasper Boye
    2017 Grammatical and lexical pronoun dissociation in French speakers with agrammatic aphasia: A usage-based account and ERF-based hypothesis. Journal of Neurolinguistics441. 1–16. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
    2019 World lexicon of grammaticalization. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316479704
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316479704 [Google Scholar]
  38. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lehmann, Christian
    2015 Thoughts on grammaticalization, 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
     https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lewis, David. K.
    1969 Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lohnstein, Horst
    2016 Verum focus. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 290–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.33
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.33 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lyons, John
    1968 Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  43. Martinet, André
    1960 Éléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. McKoon, Gail, Roger Ratcliff, Gregory Ward & Richard Sproat
    1993 Syntactic prominence effects on discourse processes. Journal of Memory and Language321. 593–607. 10.1006/jmla.1993.1030
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1030 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mélac, Eric
    2022 The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language and Linguistics26(2). 331–359. 10.1017/S1360674321000101
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674321000101 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2023 The pragmatic differences between lexical and grammatical evidentiality: A corpus-based study of Tibetan and English. Journal of Pragmatics2101. 143–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.03.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.03.017 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mélac, Eric & Joanna Bialek
    . This volume. Evidentiality as a grammaticalization passenger.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Messerschmidt, Maria, Kasper Boye, Mathilde M. Overmark, Sofie T. Kristensen & Peter Harder
    2018 Sondringen mellem grammatiske og leksikalske præpositioner [The distinction between grammatical and lexical prepositions]. Ny Forskning i Grammatik251. 89–106. 10.7146/nfg.v26i25.109304
     https://doi.org/10.7146/nfg.v26i25.109304 [Google Scholar]
  49. Michel Lange, Violaine, Maria Messerschmidt, Peter Harder, Hartwig R. Siebner & Kasper Boye
    2017 Planning and production of grammatical and lexical verbs in multi-word messages. PLoS ONE12(11). e0186685. 10.1371/journal.pone.0186685
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186685 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mithun, Marianne
    1983 The genius of polysynthesis. InJames S. Thayer (ed.), North American Indians: Humanistic perspectives. University of Oklahoma Papers in Anthropology241. 221–242.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 1998 Yup’ik roots and affixes. InOsahito Miyaoka & Minoru Oshima (eds.), Languages of the North Pacific Rim41, 63–76. Kyoto: Kyoto University Graduate School of Letters.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Newmeyer, Frederick J.
    2015 Parentheticals and the grammar of complementation. InStefan Schneider, Julie Glikman & Mathieu Avanzi (eds.), Parenthetical verbs, 13–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nielsen, Sarah R., Kasper Boye, Roelien Bastiaanse & Violaine Michel Lange
    2019 The production of grammatical and lexical determiners in Broca’s aphasia. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience34(8). 1027–1040. 10.1080/23273798.2019.1616104
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1616104 [Google Scholar]
  54. Potts, Christopher
    2004 The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Premsrirat, Suwilai
    1987 A Khmu grammar. Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics101. 1–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Price, Jessica M.
    2008 The use of focus cues in healthy ageing. Glasgow: University of Glasgow PhD dissertation.
  57. Schachter, Paul & Timothy Shopen
    2007 Parts-of-speech systems. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1: Clause structure, 1–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.001
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sturt, Patrick, Anthony J. Sanford, Andrew Stewart & Eugene Dawydiak
    2004 Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review111. 882–888. 10.3758/BF03196716
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196716 [Google Scholar]
  59. Talmy, Leonard
    2007 Attention phenomena. InDirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 264–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1982 From propositional to textual to expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. InWinfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.). Perspectives in historical linguistics, 245–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.24.09clo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.09clo [Google Scholar]
  61. von Heusinger, Klaus & Petra B. Schumacher
    2019 Discourse prominence: definition and application. Journal of Pragmatics1541. 117–127. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.025
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.025 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wiemer, Björn
    2007 Lexical markers of evidentiality in Lithuanian. Italian Journal of Linguistics191. 173–208.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23001.boy
Loading
Evidentiality, discourse prominence and grammaticalization
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 48, 575 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23001.boy
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23001.boy
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23001.boy
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): discourse prominence; evidentiality; grammaticalization; information source; proposition

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