Cover not available
Part of
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)

ORCID logo | 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: 1 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.13spr
References (57)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(5), 569–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coate, H.H.J. (1966). The Rai and the third eye: North-West Australian beliefs. Oceania, 37(2), 93–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daiber, T. (2010). Quotativmarker im Russischen (tipo/tipa). Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 55(1), 69–89. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, T. (2008). Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34, 57–111. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, I. (2000). Evidentiality and deixis in narrative retelling. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 927–957. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., & Loughnane, R. (2012). The New Guinea highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology, 16, 111–167. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vicente, A., & Martinez Manrique, F. (2011). Inner speech: Nature and functions. Philosophy Compass, 6(3), 209–219. DOI logoGoogle 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 (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Kolyaseva, Alena
2022. The Russian prepositional TIPA and VRODE in online student discourse: evidence of attraction?. Linguistics 60:5 ► pp. 1451 ff. DOI logo
Geurts, Bart
2021. First saying, then believing: The pragmatic roots of folk psychology. Mind & Language 36:4 ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo
Moore, Richard
2021. The cultural evolution of mind-modelling. Synthese 199:1-2 ► pp. 1751 ff. DOI logo
Spronck, Stef & Daniela Casartelli
2021. In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Gawne, Lauren & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
2020. Reported speech in earthquake narratives from six Tibeto-Burman languages. Studies in Language 44:2 ► pp. 461 ff. DOI logo
Sandler, Sergeiy & Esther Pascual
2019. In the beginning there was conversation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 250 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Spronck, Stef
2015. Stance as participant structure. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29 ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.