Article published in:
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 255–275

Evidential fictive interaction (in Ungarinyin and Russian)

| University of Leuven, The Netherlands
This chapter introduces and examines the notion of “evidential fictive participants” and their grammatical expression in utterances of fictive interaction. It focuses on fictive direct speech constructions and draws on examples from the Australian Aboriginal language Ungarinyin and Russian. After presenting data from these languages the chapter suggests that through the notion of participants fictive interaction forms a framework for grammatical typology. This framework has both a strong philosophical and analytical foundation and allows for an integrated approach to grammatical categories based on their relation to the conversation frame.
Keywords: evidentiality, participant types, Russian, Ungarinyin, verbal categories
Published online: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.13spr
References

References

Aikhenvald, A.Y.
(2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.C., & Ducrot, O.
(1976) L’argumentation dans la langue. Langages, 42, 5–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M.
(1986a) The problem of speech genres. In C. Emmerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas. Translated by V.W. McGee.Google Scholar
(1986b) The problem of the text in linguistics, philology, and the human sciences: An experiment in philosophical analysis. In C. Emmerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), V.W. McGee (trans.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 103–131). Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Besnier, N.
(1993) Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae Atoll. In J.H. Hill, & J.T. Irvine (Eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse (pp. 161–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P.
(2012) A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88(1), 1–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, I., & van Alphen, I.
(2012) Preface: Introductory remarks on new and old quotatives. In I. Buchstaller, & I. van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 11–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R.
(2006) Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(5), 569–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coate, H.H.J.
(1966) The Rai and the third eye: North-West Australian beliefs. Oceania, 37(2), 93–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, B.
(2009) Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16(1), 9–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daiber, T.
(2010) Quotativmarker im Russischen (tipo/tipa). Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 55(1), 69–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, F.
(1999) Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 83–101.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T.
(1980) Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, M. & Wichmann, S.
(Eds.) (2008) The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W.
(2007) The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O.
(2009) Slovenian lectures: Introduction into argumentative semantics. Digitalna Knjižnica/Dissertationes 6. Ljubljana: Pedagoški Inštitut.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M.
(1991) Shifters and deixis: Some reflections on Jakobson, Jespersen, and reference. Semiotica, 86(3/4), 193–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, L.
(2008) Alternative expressions of “want” complements. In R.D. Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (pp. 321–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, T.
(2008) Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haßler, G.
(2002) Evidentiality and reported speech in Romance languages. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse, A meeting ground for different linguistic domains (pp. 143–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, J.T.
(1996) Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse (pp. 131–159). Chicago: 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
Kockelman, P.
(2004) Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 127–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1972) Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Landragin, F., Poibeau, T., & Victorri, B.
(2012) ANALEC: A new tool for the dynamic annotation of textual data. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M.U. Dogan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’12). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Larson, M.L.
(1978) The Functions of Reported Speech in Discourse. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Loughnane, R.
(2005) Reported speech constructions in Golin. In N. Evans, J. Besold, H. Stoakes, & A. Lee (Eds.), Materials on golin: Grammar, texts and dictionary (pp. 131–152). Melbourne: Department of Linguistics and Applied Lingustics, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
McGregor, W.B.
(2007) A desiderative complement construction in Warrwa. In J. Siegel, J. Lynch, & D. Eades (Eds.), Language description, history and development (pp. 27–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.
(2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34, 57–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, R., Ludwig, R., Sauerland, U., & Fleck, D.W.
(2012) Reported speech in Matses: Perspective persistence and evidential narratives. International Journal of American Linguistics, 78(1), 41–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mushin, I.
(2000) Evidentiality and deixis in narrative retelling. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 927–957. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nølke, H., Fløttum, K., & Norén, C.
(2004) ScaPoLine: La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kime.Google Scholar
Padučeva, E.V.
(2010) Pokazateli čužoj reči: mol i deskat’ . Izvestija RAN. Serija literatury i jazyka, 70(3), 13–19.Google Scholar
Pascual, E.
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reesink, G.P.
(1993) ‘Inner speech’ in Papuan languages. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, 24, 217–225.Google Scholar
Romaine, S., & Lange, D.
(1991) The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66(3), 227–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, A.
(1982) An intra-sentence grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Number 86 in B. Canberra: Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(1990) Wording, meaning and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist, 92(2), 346–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., & Loughnane, R.
(2012) The New Guinea highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology, 16, 111–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, A.
(1988) On syntactic convergence: The case of the verb ‘say’ in Tibeto-Burman. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 375–388.
Sergeeva, E.N.
(2010)  Tipa kak èvidencial’nyj marker v russkoj razgovornoj reči. In N.N. Kazanskij (Ed.), Acta Linguistica Petropolitana: Trudy instituta lingvističeskix issledovanij, Volume IV, 149–153.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M.
(1976) Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K.H. Basso, & H.A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11–55). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico press.Google Scholar
Smith, C.S.
(2010) Accounting for subjectivity (point of view). In R.P. Meier, H. Aristar-Dry, & E. Destruel (Eds.), Text, time, and context, Studies in linguistics and philosophy (pp. 371–393). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Smith, E.W.
(1907) A handbook of the Ila language. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spronck, S.
(2012) Minds divided: Speaker attitudes in quotatives. In I. Buchstaller, & I. Van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 71–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Refracting views: How to construct complex perspective in reported speech and thought in Ungarinyin. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 68(2), 165–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Reported speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and social cognition in a language of the Kimberley region, Western Australia. Ph.D. dissertation, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A.
(1987) “Subordination” and narrative event structure. In R.S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 435–454). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verstraete, J.C.
(2011) The functions of represented speech and thought in Umpi- thamu narratives. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 31(4), 491–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vicente, A., & Martinez Manrique, F.
(2011) Inner speech: Nature and functions. Philosophy Compass, 6(3), 209–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Voloshinov, V.N.
(1973) Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
van der Voort, H.
(2002) The quotative construction in Kwaza and its (de)grammaticalisation. In M. Crevels, S. vande Kerke, S. Meira, & H. van der Voort (Eds.), Current studies on South American languages indigenous languages of Latin America (Vol. 3, pp. 307–328).Google Scholar
Wiemer, B.
(2010) Hearsay in European languages: Toward an integrative account of grammatical and lexical marking. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages (pp. 59–129). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Gawne, Lauren & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
2020. Reported speech in earthquake narratives from six Tibeto-Burman languages. Studies in Language 44:2 ► pp. 461 ff. Crossref logo
Kolyaseva, Alena & Kristin Davidse
2018. A typology of lexical and grammaticalized uses of Russian tip, tipa, po tipu. Russian Linguistics 42:2 ► pp. 191 ff. Crossref logo
Moore, Richard
2020. The cultural evolution of mind-modelling. Synthese Crossref logo
Sandler, Sergeiy & Esther Pascual
2019. In the beginning there was conversation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 29:2 ► pp. 250 ff. Crossref logo
Spronck, Stef
2015. Stance as participant structure. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29 ► pp. 193 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2020. 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.