Article published in:
Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives
Edited by Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Gerda Haßler and Marta Carretero
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 271] 2017
► pp. 13–55

Evidentiality in Cognitive Grammar

| University of California, San Diego

A clause serves the intersubjective function of presenting and negotiating a proposition. It both describes an occurrence and gives some indication of its epistemic status. The latter consists primarily in an assessment of whether the occurrence is realized, but may also include the basis for this assessment, and since there is no sharp distinction between the two, evidentiality constitutes a dimension of clausal grounding. Both dimensions of grounding are organized egocentrically in terms of immediacy to the ground and increments of distance from it. In a broad sense, grounding is also effected by lexical and grammatical means. These represent a higher level of functional organization concerned not with the occurrence of events but with the validity of propositions.

Keywords: distance, egocentricity, proposition, epistemic assessment, function, grounding
Published online: 21 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271.02lan
References

References

Achard, Michel
1998 Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements. Cognitive Linguistics Research 11. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2003 “Evidentiality in Tariana.” In Studies in Evidentiality, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, and Robert M. W. Dixon, 131–164. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and Robert M. W. Dixon
(eds) 2003 Studies in Evidentiality. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer
(eds) 2000 Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder
2007 “Complement-Taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language 31: 569–606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Evidentiality: Linguistic Categories and Grammaticalization.” Functions of Language 16: 9–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “A Usage-Based Theory of Grammatical Status and Grammaticalization.” Language 88: 1–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brisard, Frank
(ed.) 2002 Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Cognitive Linguistics Research 21. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert
2009 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: On the Close Relationship Between Two Different Categories.” Functions of Language 16: 44–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger, and Michael Tomasello
2001 “The Acquisition of Finite Complement Clauses in English: A Corpus-Based Analysis.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 97–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Rick
1996a “The Radial Structure of the Wanka Reportative.” In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, ed. by Eugene H. Casad, 895–941. Cognitive Linguistics Research 6. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b “Experience, Certainty and Control, and the Direct Evidential in Wanka Quechua Questions.” Functions of Language 3: 69–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
1985 Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Christian Matthiessen
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Third edition. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter
2010 Meaning in Mind and Society: A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics Research 41. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M.
2009 Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality and Modality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kalectaca, Milo
1978 Lessons in Hopi. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky
1970 “Fact.” In Progress in Linguistics, ed. by Manfred Bierwisch, and Karl Erich Heidolph, 143–173. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2002a “A Study in Unified Diversity: English and Mixtec Locatives.” In Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, ed. by N. J. Enfield, 138–161. Oxford and London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002b “The Control Cycle: Why Grammar is a Matter of Life and Death.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association 2: 193–220.Google Scholar
2002c “Deixis and Subjectivity.” In Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, ed. by Frank Brisard, 1–28. Cognitive Linguistics Research 21. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005a “Dynamicity, Fictivity, and Scanning: The Imaginative Basis of Logic and Linguistic Meaning.” In Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language and Thinking, ed. by Diane Pecher, and Rolf A. Zwaan, 164–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005b “Integration, Grammaticization, and Constructional Meaning.” In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried, and Hans C. Boas, 157–189. Constructional Approaches to Language 4. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics Research 42. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013a “On Grammatical Categories.” Foreign Studies 1 (4): 1–23.Google Scholar
2013b “Modals: Striving for Control.” In English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, ed. by Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera, 3–55. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015a “How to Build an English Clause”. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2 (2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015b ” Descriptive and Discursive Organization in Cognitive Grammar.” In Change of Paradigms—New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics , ed. by Joceleyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman, and Hubert Cuyckens, 205-218. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 31. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2016 "Baseline and Elaboration." Cognitive Linguistics 27: 405–439.Google Scholar
McLendon, Sally
2003 “Evidentials in Eastern Pomo with a Comparative Survey of the Category in Other Pomoan Languages.” In Studies in Evidentiality, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, and Robert M. W. Dixon, 101–129. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, Diane, and Rolf A. Zwaan
(eds) 2005 Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1978 “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–47. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E.
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1988 “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.” Cognitive Science 12: 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “Fictive Motion in Language and ‘Ception’.” In Language and Space, ed. by Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill F. Garrett, 211–276. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 “ ‘Object Complements’ and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26: 125–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, Pilar M.
2003 “Evidentiality in Shipibo-Konibo, with a Comparative Overview of the Category in Panoan.” In Studies in Evidentiality, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, and Robert M. W. Dixon, 33–61. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev, and Roslyn M. Frank
(eds) 2007 Body, Language and Mind, vol. 1, Embodiment. Cognitive Linguistics Research 35.1. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Alberti, Gábor, Mónika Dóla, Eszter Kárpáti, Judit Kleiber, Anna Szeteli & Anita Viszket
2019. Kérdéses világaink. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 6:2 ► pp. 11 ff. Crossref logo
Marín Arrese, Juana I.
2018.  In Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality [Studies in Language Companion Series, 197], ► pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo
Siyavoshi, Sara
2019. Hands and faces: The expression of modality in ZEI, Iranian Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics 30:4 ► pp. 655 ff. Crossref logo
Wilcox, Sherman & Rocío Martínez
2020. The Conceptualization of Space: Places in Signed Language Discourse. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo
周, 梦茹
2020. A Semantic Study of Chinese Clefts from the Perspective of Embodied-Cognitive Linguistics. Modern Linguistics 08:01 ► pp. 15 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 august 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.