Cover not available
Article published In:
Evidentiality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
Edited by Bert Cornillie and Juana I. Marín-Arrese
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29] 2015
► pp. 19–40

Hearer-oriented processes of strength assignment

a pragmatic model of commitment

This relevance-based account of commitment borrows from studies on epistemic vigilance and focuses on the hearer’s perspective. It suggests that commitment determines the strength of the contextual assumptions derived from utterance interpretation. In this contribution, I distinguish four kinds of commitment: speaker commitment, communicated commitment, attributed commitment and hearer commitment. The last two kinds of commitment are influenced by three main factors which will be considered in turn: linguistic markers, the hearer’s appraisal of the speaker and the salience of the communicated assumption in his cognitive environment. These claims translate into four experimentally testable predictions. This proposal echoes the current debate concerned with epistemic evaluation of information and aims to account for individuals’ commitment in terms of the relative strength of stored assumptions in their cognitive environment.

Keywords: epistemic modality, commitment, relevance theory, evidentiality, epistemic vigilance
Published online: 24 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.01bou
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birkelund, Merete, Nølke, Henning and Rita Therkelsen
(eds) 2009  La Polyphonie Linguistique . Special issue of Langue Française 164.Google Scholar
De Brabanter, Philippe and Patrick Dendale
(eds) 2008 Commitment. Issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1986 “Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing.” In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clément, Fabrice
2006 Les Mécanismes de la Crédulité. Genève: Librairie Droz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “To trust or not to trust. Children’s social epistemology.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (2). Special issue on Naive Epistemology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
1983 The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London, Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Coltier, Danielle; Dendale, Patrick and Philippe De Brabanter
(eds) 2009 La Notion de Prise en Charge en Linguistique. Special issue of Langue Française 1621.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert and Nicole Delbecque
2008 “Speaker Commitment: Back to the Speaker. Evidence from Spanish Alternations.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221: 37–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert
2009 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: On the Close Relationship between two Different Categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 44–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, Patrick and Danielle Coltier
(eds) 2011 La Prise en Charge Enonciative: Etudes Théoriques et Empiriques. Paris – Bruxelles: De Boeck – Duculot.Google Scholar
Fitneva, Stanka, A
2001 “Epistemic Marking and Reliability Judgements: Evidence from Bulgarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 331: 401–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Christopher
2011 “Legitimizing Assertions and the Logico-Rhetorical Module: Evidence and Epistemic Vigilance in Media Discourse on Immigration.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 751–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassler, Gerda
2010 “Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality and their Determination on a Deictic Basis: the Case of Romance Languages.” In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by Gabriele Diewald and Elena Smirnova, 223–248. Berlin, New-York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly
2000 “Procedural encoding of explicatures by the Modern Greek particle taha .” In Pragmatic Markers and Propositional attitude, ed. by Gisle Andersen and Thorstein Fretheim, 119–144. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jary, Mark
2010 Assertion. Basingstoke; New-York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Assertion, Relevance and the Declarative Mood.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern, 267–289. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. London. New York: CUP.Google Scholar
1995 Linguistic Semantics: an Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I
2007 “Commitment and Subjectivity in the Discourse of Opinion Columns and Leading Articles, a Corpus Study.” RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 11: 82–98. (special issue titled Different Approaches to Newspaper Opinion Discourse, ed. by Isabel Alonso Belmonte (ed.)).Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana Isabel
2011 “Epistemic Legitimizing Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 789–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, Olivier and Dan Sperber
2009 “The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance towards Deception.” Cognition 1121: 367–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, Teenie
1989 “Metaphor and the Grammaticalization of Evidentials.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 151: 215–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana
2013 ““Optimal Relevance” as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic Vigilance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 251: 20–45.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
2013 “Is a Speaker-Based Pragmatics Possible? Or How Can a Hearer Infer a Speaker’s Commitment?” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 84–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morency, Patrick, Oswald, Steve and Louis de Saussure
2008 “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221: 197–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nølke, Henning
1994 La Dilution Linguistique des Responsabilités: Essai de Description Polyphonique des Marqueurs Evidentiels il semble que et il paraît que. In Les Sources du Savoir et leurs Marques Linguistiques, ed. by Patrick Dendale and Liliane Tasmowski, 84–94. Montrouge: Larousse.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2001 Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues.” In The Expression of Modality, ed. by William Frawley, 1–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve
2011 “From Interpretation to Consent: Arguments, Beliefs and Meaning.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 806–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2012 “Epistemic Vigilance, Cautious Optimism and Sophisticated Understanding.” Research in Language 10 (4): 365–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert
1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna
2000a Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
2000b “On Speech-Act Modality.” Journal of Pragmatics 321: 519–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Epistemic Modality and Truth Conditions.” Lingua 1161: 1688–1702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola
2008 “ Certamente and Sicuramente. Encoding Dynamic and Discursive Aspects of Commitment in Italian.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221: 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Louis de
2011 Discourse Analysis, Cognition and Evidentials. Discourse Studies 13 (6): 781–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Clément, Fabrice, Heintz, Christophe, Mascaro, Olivier, Mercier, Hugo; Origgi, Gloria and Deirdre Wilson
2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25 (4): 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
2003 “Approaching Modality from the Perspective of Relevance Theory.” Language Sciences 25 (6): 657–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth and Richard B. Dasher
2007 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas
1988 “A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language 121: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 901: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2011 “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural meaning: problems and perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Modality and the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Walaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 23–43. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Elder, Chi-Hé
2021. Speaker Meaning, Commitment and Accountability. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
Elder, Chi-Hé
2024. Pragmatic Inference, DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
2017. Communicative Intentions and Commitments. In Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 14], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
2017. Establishing Commitments Between Ambiguity and Misquotation. In Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 14], ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Oswald, Steve
2022. Insinuation is committing. Journal of Pragmatics 198 ► pp. 158 ff. DOI logo
Ricci, Claudia & Corinne Rossari
2018. Commitment phenomena through the study of evidential markers in Romance languages. Journal of Pragmatics 128 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.