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. 193–216

Stance as participant structure

A Jakobsonian approach to the pragmatics and semantics of evidentiality

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.

Keywords: reported speech, Roman O. Jakobson, semantics, stance, pragmatics
Published online: 24 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.09spr
References
Aikhenvald, A.Y
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015 “Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories.” Linguistic Typology 19 (2): 239–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronson, H.I
1991 “Towards a typology of verbal categories.” In New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, ed. by L.R. Waugh and S. Rudy, 111–131. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, I
2011 “Quotations across generations: A multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7 (1): 59–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Quotatives: New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications. Oxford etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coate, H.H.J
1966 “The Rai and the third eye: North-West Australian beliefs.” Oceania 37 (2): 93–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, B
2009 “Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 9–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. and E. Smirnova
2010 “Introduction: Evidentiality in European languages: the lexical-grammatical distinction.” In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by G. Diewald and E. Smirnova, 1–14. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W
2007 “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by R. Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N
2006 “View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions.” In Proceedings 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
2012 “Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach.” In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, ed. by D. Brown, M. Chumakina, and G.G. Corbett, 66–98. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, M
2012 “Evidential scalar implicatures.” Linguistics and Philosophy 351: 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, M
1989 “Jespersen’s shifters: Reflections on deixis and subjectivity in language.” Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 15–161: 97–116.Google Scholar
Goffman, E
1974 Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Haßler, G
2002 “Evidentiality and reported speech in Romance languages.” In Reported Discourse, A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, ed. by T. Güldemann and M. von Roncador, 143–172. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horrack, K
2014 “He jumped off the bridge CAUS she told him to: Indirect speech as a means of expressing indirect causation in Wubuy.” In Selected 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
Irvine, J.T
1996 “Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles.” In Natural Histories of Discourse, ed. by M. Silverstein and G. Urban, 131–159. Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R
1957 Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O
1922 Language: Its Nature Development and Origin. New York: Henry Holt & Company.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P
2004 “Stance and subjectivity.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14 (2): 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, W.B
2007 “A desiderative complement construction in Warrwa.” In Language description, history and development, ed. by J. Siegel, J. Lynch and D. Eades, 27–40. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The Nyulnyul language of Dampier Land, Western Australia, Volume 1 and 21. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I
1991 “Toward a universal calculus of inflectional categories: On Roman Jakobson’s trail.” In New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, ed. by L.R. Waugh and S. Rudy, 85–109. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nekes, H. and E.A. Worms
1953 Australian languages. Freiburg: Anthropos Institut.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J., P. Byloo and J. Diepeveen
2010 “On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten .” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 16–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, C
2005 The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007a The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33 (2): 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b Into the conventional-implicature dimension. Philosophy Compass 2 (4): 665–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, A
1990 Wording, meaning and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist 92 (2): 346–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L
2008 An introduction to Duna grammar. Ph. D. thesis, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
2010 “Origo seeks ego for open relationship: Some issues of perspective and evidential morphology.” Presentation held at the Australian National University, 2nd July 2010.
San Roque, L. and H. Bergqvist
(eds.) 2015 Epistemic marking in typological perspective, special issue of STUF – Language Typology and Universals 681.Google Scholar
San Roque, L., S. Floyd, and E. Norcliffe
Forthcoming. “Evidentiality and interrogativity.” Lingua.
San Roque, L. and R. Loughnane
2012 The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 161, 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C.S
2010 “Accounting for subjectivity (point of view).” In Text, 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
Speas, M
2004 “Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features.” Lingua 1141: 255–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spronck, S
2012 “Minds divided, speaker attitudes in quotatives.” In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives, ed. by I. Buchstaller and I. Van Alphen, 71–116. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Refracting views: How to construct complex perspective in reported speech and thought in Ungarinyin.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68 (2): 165–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. “Evidential fictive interaction in Ungarinyin and Russian.” In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction ed. by E. Pascual and S. Sandler Amsterdam – Philadelphia John Benjamins DOI logo
Vandelanotte, L
2006 “Speech or thought representation and subjectification, or on the need to think twice.” Belgian journal of linguistics 201: 137–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C
2001 “Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (10): 1505–1528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain.” Journal of Pragmatics 371: 1401–1418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. and A.S. Gillies
2008 “CIA leaks.” Philosophical Review 117 (1): 77–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
1974 “The function of direct and indirect discourse.” Papers in Linguistics 7 (3): 267–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D.P
1986 “Particle/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda).” Journal of Pragmatics 101: 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Si, Aung & Stef Spronck
2019. Solega defenestration. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Spronck, Stef
2017. Defenestration: deconstructing the frame-in relation in Ungarinyin. Journal of Pragmatics 114 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23:1 ► pp. 119 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.