Evidentials, genre and epistemic vigilance
In many languages with a grammaticalised evidential system, there are conventional associations between certain genres and evidentials so that evidentials may be used as genre indicators. Aikhenvald (2004) shows that that cross-linguistically there is a particularly strong connection between reported evidentials (as opposed to indicators of other evidentiality types) and the traditional narrative genre (as opposed to other genres). I argue that this connection between reported evidentials and the traditional narrative genre can be explained on the basis that true reported evidentials on the one hand, and traditional narratives on the other, activate procedures dedicated to epistemic vigilance and argumentation in ways that other evidentials and other genres do not.
References (32)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alas, Reet, and Anu Treikelder. 2010. “Some Remarks on Reported Evidentiality in French and in Estonian: A Contrastive Approach.” Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu Aastaraamat [Yearbook of the Estonian Association for Applied Linguistics] 6: 7–23.
Blass, Regina. 1989. “Grammaticalisation of Interpretive Use: the Case of ré in Sissala.” Lingua 79 : 299–326.
Blass, Regina. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boas, Franz (ed.). 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages. Part 1. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulleting 40. Washington: Government Print Office.
Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols (eds). 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Davis, Christopher, Christopher Potts, and Margaret Speas. 2007. “The Pragmatic Values of Evidential Sentences.” In Proceedings of
SALT
17: 71–88.
Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael, and Silvi Vare. 1993. Eesti Keele Grammatika. [Grammar of Estonian.], Vol. 2. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
Faller, Martina 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD diss., Stanford University.
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Klaas, Birute. 1997. “The Quotative Mood in the Baltic Sea Areal.” In Estonian Typological Studies II, ed. by M. Erelt, 73–97. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Mascaro, Olivier, and Dan Sperber. 2009. “The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance towards Deception.” Cognition 112: 367–380.
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2009. “Intuitive and Reflective Inferences.” In In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. by J. Evans and K. Frankish, 149–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, Frank. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier.
Papafragou, Anna, Peggy Li, Youngon Choi, and Chung-hye Han. 2007. “Evidentiality in Language and Cognition.” Cognition 103 (2): 253–299.
Sperber, Dan. 1996. Explaining Culture. A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, Dan. 2000. “Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective.” In Metarepresentations, ed. by D. Sperber, 117–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, Dan. 2001. “An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.” Philosophical Topics 29: 401–413.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition. [1st edition 1986.] Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25: 359–393.
Unger, Christoph. 2006. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Unger, Christoph. 2010. “The Argumentation Module and the Cognitive Role of Genre.” Paper presented at the
Intercultural Pragmatics Conference
, Madrid.
Unger, Christoph. 2011. “Exploring the Borderline between Procedural Encoding and Pragmatic Inference.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by M. Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 103–127. Bingley: Emerald.
Unger, Christoph. 2012. “Epistemic Vigilance and the Function of Procedural Indicators in Communication and Comprehension.” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. by A. Piskorska and E. Wałaszewska, 45–73. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2000. “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” In Metarepresentation, ed. by Dan Sperber, 411–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1988. “Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences.” In Human agency: Language, Duty and Value, ed. by J. Dancy, J. Moravcsik and C. Taylor, 77–101. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Figueras Bates, Carolina
2019.
Razonamiento y Vigilancia Epistémica: Una Explicación Relevantista de los Evidencialespor lo vistoyse ve que.
Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics 7:1
► pp. 71 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.