Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.12kit
References (44)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The role of “perspective” in epistemic marking. Lingua, 186, 5–20.DOI logoGoogle 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. < [URL] >
2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language, 27(1), 39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. 2010a. Evidentiality in German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). 2010b. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, 36, 161–195. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, I. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, J., & Michael, L. 2012. Evidentials and evidential strategies in interactional and socio-cultural context. Pragmatics and Society, 3(2), 181–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plungian, V. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 349–357. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL].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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willet, T. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 57–91.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Mélac, Eric & Pascale Leclercq
2024. The functions of evidentiality. Functions of Language DOI logo
Kaiser, Elsi
2022. Evidentiality in Finnish. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Grzech, Karolina, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Henrik Bergqvist
2020. Knowing in interaction: An introduction. Folia Linguistica 54:2 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.