Chapter published in:
Evidence for Evidentiality
Edited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 281–304

Chapter 11
What do different methods of data collection reveal about evidentiality?

| University of Helsinki
| University of Helsinki
| University of Helsinki
In this chapter, different types of data used in evidentiality studies are discussed. We first discuss reference grammars, which are necessary for any cross-linguistic study of evidentials. This is followed by a discussion of (different types of) usage-based data, as well as natural language data and stimulus-based data collection used in linguistic fieldwork. We end our discussion by examining data collected by means of questionnaires and acceptability judgments. It is shown that all the types of data discussed are relevant for a full understanding of evidentiality, but they differ in their contribution and complement each other. For example, usage-based data is necessary for studying frequencies in languages, while reference grammars reveal what is common across languages.
Keywords: usage-based data, stimulus-based data collection, questionnaires, reference grammars
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reference grammars and the typological perspective
  • 3.Usage-based data
  • 4.Field linguistics
    • 4.1Naturally occurring speech
    • 4.2Controlled and staged events
  • 5.Questionnaires and acceptability judgments
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 19 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.12kit
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
2004 Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcázar, A.
2010 Information source in Spanish and Basque: A parallel corpus study 1. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova, (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages (131–156). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H.
2016 Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics, 82(1), 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 The role of “perspective” in epistemic marking. Lingua, 186, 5–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, F.Ed.
1911, Handbook of American Indian Languages. Part 1. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40.Google Scholar
Bruil, M.
2014 Clause-typing and evidentiality in Ecuadorian Siona. PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Leiden.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L., and J. Nichols
(Eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Advances in Discourse Processes 20. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cheung, J. C. K., Leung, M., Yang, A. Xing, D. & Tse, J.
2010 Variation in restrictions on multiple evidential markers in Japanese by speaker age. In T. Peterson, & U. Sauerland (Eds.), Evidence from evidentials (29–39).[University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B.
2010 An interactional approach to evidential and epistemic adverbs in Spanish conversation. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), The linguistic realization of evidentiality in European Languages (309–330). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Curnow, T. J.
2001 Evidentiality and me: The interaction of evidentials and first person. In C. Allen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. http://​www​.als​.asn​.au
2003 Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language, 27(1), 39–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö
1985 Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E.
2010a Evidentiality in German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) 2010b Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S.
2005 The poetics of evidentiality in South American storytelling. Santa Barbara papers in linguistics, 16, 28–41.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A.
2003 Genre, register and language documentation in literate and pre-literate communities. In Peter Austin (Ed.), Language Documentation and Description, 1, 85–98. London: Hans Rausing Endangered Language Project, School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Fox, B.
2001 Evidentiality: authority, responsibility and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(2), 167–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gipper, S.
2011 Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakaré. An interactional account. PhD dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hayano, K.
2013 Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation. PhD dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Helin, I.
2004 … so der Wetterbericht. Evidentialität und Redewiedergabe in deutschen und finnischen Medientexten und Übersetzungen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2006 Implication of Evidentiality in Translation. SKY journal of linguistics, 19, 282–290. [In M. Suominen (Ed.), A man of measure: Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday, special supplement].Google Scholar
Heritage, J.
2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G.
2005 The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
1998 Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, 36, 161–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R.
2012 Shifting voices, shifting worlds: Evidentiality, epistemic modality and speaker perspective in Quechua oral narrative. Pragmatics and Society, 3(2), 243–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E., & Pajunen, A.
2010 Empiirisen kielitieteen metodologia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Jaakola, M.
2012 Displaying knowledge in journalistic texts: A contrastive analysis of an evidential particle in Estonian and Finnish. Lähivõrdlusi [Lähivertailuja 22] (43–70). Tallinn: Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jalava, L.
2012 Tempuksen ilmaiseminen tundranenetsin moduksissa. In L. Jalava, E. Sandman, J. Saarikivi, T. Hyytiäinen (Eds.), Per Urales as Orientem: Iter polypronicum multilingue, 131–144. Memoires de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne 264, Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Keinänen, S.
2017 Comparison of evidentiality terminology. A paper presented at the symposium ‘The expression of knowledge: epistemicity and beyond’, Helsinki, 23.8.2017.
Kilgarriff, A.
2007 Googleology is Bad Science. Computational Linguistics, 33(1), 147–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lüpke, F.
2005 Small is beautiful: The contribution of small field-based corpora to different linguistic disciplines. In P. Austin (Ed.), Language Documentation and Description, 3, 75–105. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
Michael, L.
2008 Nanti Evidential Practice. Language, Knowledge and Social Interaction in Amazonian Society. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
2012 Nanti self-quotation. Implications for the pragmatics of reported speech and evidentiality. Pragmatics and Society, 3(2), 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I., Farmer, T., & Waugh, L. R.
2007 They actually said that? An Introduction to working with usage data through discourse and corpus analysis. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, M. Spivey, I. Mittelberg, & S. Coulson (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, 19–52. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins [Human Cognitive Processing Series 18]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mushin, I.
2001 Evidentiality and epistemological stance: narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, J., & Michael, L.
2012 Evidentials and evidential strategies in interactional and socio-cultural context. Pragmatics and Society, 3(2), 181–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plungian, V.
2001 The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 349–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandman, E.
2016 A Grammar of Wutun. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Gawne, L., Hoenigman, D., Miller, J. C., Rumsey, A., Spronck, S., Carroll, A., & Evans, N.
2012 Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Language Documentation & Conservation, 6, 135–174. http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/10125​/4504.Google Scholar
Silva, W., & AnderBois, S.
2016 Fieldwork Game Play: Masterminding Evidentiality in Desano. Language Documentation & Conservation, 58–76.Google Scholar
Vanhatalo, U.
2005 Kyselytestit synonymian selvittämisessä. Sanastotietoutta kielenpuhujilta sähköiseen sanakirjaan. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Vokurková, Z.
2008 Epistemic modalities in Spoken Standard Tibetan. PhD dissertation, Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
Whitt, R. J.
2010 Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German [German Linguistic and Cultural Studies 26]. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willet, T.
1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 57–91.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Grzech, Karolina
2020. Managing Common Ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evidential’ markers in Upper Napo Kichwa and their functions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 168 ► pp. 81 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. 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.