Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 69–94

Chapter 3
Evidential participles and epistemic vigilance

| Universidad de Sevilla

For communicated contents to be accepted by the audience, they have to pass the filters of epistemic vigilance mechanisms, which check the credibility and reliability of communicators and the information provided. Communicators may lack adequate evidence about the information they dispense. One of the ways to indicate to the audience that they are uncertain about some information (rather than to put their reputation as reliable speakers at risk) is to use participial adjectives, such as alleged or suspected. The chapter discusses the features of such adjectives and argues that they specialise for marking the speaker’s epistemic stance towards the information communicated – a function they share with other evidentials. Unlike many other expressions denoting epistemic stance, however, they appear to be confined in their scope to the noun phrase in which they occur.

Keywords: evidential participles, evidentials, evidentiality, epistemic vigilance, epistemic stance, (dis)belief, stylistic choices, propositional attitude, comprehension
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Things we do with words
  • 3.Style and relevance
  • 4.Properties of prototypical participial adjectives
  • 5.On the evidential function of some past participles
    • 5.1Evidentials and epistemic vigilance
    • 5.2What evidential participles communicate
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.03crz
References
Aikhenvald, A.
(2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B.
(2006) Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 2(2), 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J.
(1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
(1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1992) Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1993) The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature, 2, 101–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Relevance, poetic effects and social goals: A reply to Culpeper. Language and Literature, 3, 49–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, R.
(1989) Grammaticalisation of interpretive use: The case of ré in Sissala. Lingua, 79, 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) Relevance Relations in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, K., & Burridge, K.
(2001) Introducing English Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1987) Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
(2002) Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua, 175–176, 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clément, F., Koenig, M., & Harris, P.
(2004) The ontogenesis of trust. Mind & Language, 19(4), 360–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, P., & Hollo, C.
(2000) English Grammar: An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B.
(2007) Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)Auxiliaries: A Cognitive-functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Corriveau, K., & Harris, P.
(2009) Preschoolers continue to trust a more accurate informant 1 week after exposure to accuracy information. Developmental Science, 12(1), 188–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
(1991) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J.
(1994) Why relevance theory does not explain ‘The relevance of reformulations’. Language and Literature, 3, 43–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L.
(2001) Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell Vidal, V.
(1998) Politeness: A relevant issue for relevance theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11, 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M.
(2007) Epistemic Injustice. Power & the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R.
(1993) A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–59). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. M. V., & Guéron, J.
(1999) English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haugh, M.
(2014) Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heyman, G. D.
(2008) Children’s critical thinking when learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 344–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J., & Brown, D. F.
(1987) Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 523–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R.
(1988) English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E.
(1992) Sentential adverbs and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 193–214.Google Scholar
(1993) Parentheticals and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 193–210.Google Scholar
(2001) Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imai, K.
(1998) Intonation and relevance. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itani, R.
(1994) A relevance-based analysis of hearsay particles: Japanese utterance-final tte. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 379–400.Google Scholar
(1998) A relevance-based analysis of hearsay particles: With special reference to Japanese sentence-final particle tte. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications (pp. 47–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jary, M.
(1998) Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Two types of implicatures: Material and behavioural. Mind & Language, 28(5), 638–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H.
(1993) The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5), 435-452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koenig, M., & Harris, P.
(2007) The basis of epistemic truth: Reliable testimony or reliable sources? Episteme, 4(3), 264–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A.
(2006) Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 25(3), 249–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manes, J., & Wolfson, N.
(1981) The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 115–132). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Marandin, J.-M.
(1987) Des mots et des actions : ‘Compliment’, ‘complimenter’ et l’action de complimenter. Lexique, 5, 65–99.Google Scholar
Mascaro, O., & Sperber, D.
(2009) The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 112(3), 367–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H.
(2007) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D.
(2013) ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: The role of epistemic vigilance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 25, 20–45.Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.
(2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyers, C.
(Ed.) (2010) Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelian, K.
(2013) The evolution of testimony: Receiver vigilance, speaker honesty and the reliability of communication. Episteme, 10(1), 37–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J.
(1993) Relevance and conversation. Lingua, 90(1-2), 149-171.Google Scholar
Norrick, N.
(1980) The speech act of complimenting. In E. Hovdhaugen (Ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics (pp. 296–304). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J.
(2006) Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The Expression of Modality (pp. 1–26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Origgi, G.
(2013) Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 26(2), 221–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, S.
(2011) From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning. Discourse Studies, 13(6), 806–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Rhetoric and cognition: Pragmatic constraints on argument processing. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory. Recent Development, Current Challenges and Future Directions (pp. 261–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M.
(2009) Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 182–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Epistemic vigilance, cautious optimism and sophisticated understanding. Research in Language, 10(4), 365–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure in intercultural communication: From focus on speakers to focus on hearers. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51(1), 23–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) On the role of vigilance in the interpretation of puns. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, 28(3), 469–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F.
(1986) Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Mood and Modality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, A.
(2016) Perlocutionary effects and relevance theory. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory. Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions (pp. 287–305). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rich, C.
(2015) Writing and Reporting News: A Coaching Method. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Rouchota, V.
(1995) Discourse connectives: What do they link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 199-212.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H.
(Ed.) (2008) Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sperber, D.
(1994) Understanding verbal understanding. In J. Khalfa (Ed.), What Is Intelligence? (pp. 179-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Speakers are honest because hearers are vigilant. Reply to Kourken Michaelian. Episteme, 10(1), 61–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Mercier, H.
(2012) Reasoning as a social competence. In H. Landemore, & J. Elster (Eds.), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms (pp. 368–392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, O., & Wilson, D.
(2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stovall, J. G.
(2004) Journalism: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
Trotter, D.
(1992) Analysing literary prose: The relevance of relevance theory. Lingua, 87(1-2), 11-27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, C.
(2016) Evidentials, genre and epistemic vigilance. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory. Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions (pp. 239–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T.
(2003) Interjections, language and the ‘showing-saying’ continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11(1), 39–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Pragmatics and Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
(1995) Is there a maxim of truthfulness? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 197–212.Google Scholar
(1999) Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 127-161.Google Scholar
(2012) Modality and the conceptual-procedural distinction. In E. Wałaszewska, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, (pp. 23–44). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2016) Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua, 175–176, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1–2), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002a) Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 249–287.Google Scholar
(2002b) Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443), 583–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004)  Relevance theory. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Wharton, T.
(2006) Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, N.
(1983) An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In N. Wolfson, & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 82–95). Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J.
(1980) The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics, 13(3), 391–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus Ramos, F.
(1999a) Towards a pragmatic taxonomy of misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 38, 217–239.Google Scholar
(1999b) Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication. Pragmatics, 9(4), 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2022. Ad hoc concepts, affective attitude and epistemic stance. Pragmatics & Cognition 29:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 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.