Cover not available
Article published In:
Evidentiality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
Edited by Bert Cornillie and Juana I. Marín-Arrese
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29] 2015
► pp. 19–40

Hearer-oriented processes of strength assignment

a pragmatic model of commitment

This relevance-based account of commitment borrows from studies on epistemic vigilance and focuses on the hearer’s perspective. It suggests that commitment determines the strength of the contextual assumptions derived from utterance interpretation. In this contribution, I distinguish four kinds of commitment: speaker commitment, communicated commitment, attributed commitment and hearer commitment. The last two kinds of commitment are influenced by three main factors which will be considered in turn: linguistic markers, the hearer’s appraisal of the speaker and the salience of the communicated assumption in his cognitive environment. These claims translate into four experimentally testable predictions. This proposal echoes the current debate concerned with epistemic evaluation of information and aims to account for individuals’ commitment in terms of the relative strength of stored assumptions in their cognitive environment.
Keywords: epistemic modality, commitment, relevance theory, evidentiality, epistemic vigilance
Published online: 24 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.01bou
References (46)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birkelund, Merete, Nølke, Henning and Rita Therkelsen (eds). 2009. La Polyphonie Linguistique . Special issue of Langue Française 164.Google Scholar
De Brabanter, Philippe and Patrick Dendale (eds). 2008. Commitment. Issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. “Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing.” In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clément, Fabrice. 2006. Les Mécanismes de la Crédulité. Genève: Librairie Droz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “To trust or not to trust. Children’s social epistemology.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (2). Special issue on Naive Epistemology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London, Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Coltier, Danielle; Dendale, Patrick and Philippe De Brabanter (eds). 2009. La Notion de Prise en Charge en Linguistique. Special issue of Langue Française 1621.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert and Nicole Delbecque. 2008. “Speaker Commitment: Back to the Speaker. Evidence from Spanish Alternations.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221: 37–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2009. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: On the Close Relationship between two Different Categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 44–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, Patrick and Danielle Coltier (eds). 2011. La Prise en Charge Enonciative: Etudes Théoriques et Empiriques. Paris – Bruxelles: De Boeck – Duculot.Google Scholar
Fitneva, Stanka, A. 2001. “Epistemic Marking and Reliability Judgements: Evidence from Bulgarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 331: 401–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2011. “Legitimizing Assertions and the Logico-Rhetorical Module: Evidence and Epistemic Vigilance in Media Discourse on Immigration.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 751–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassler, Gerda. 2010. “Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality and their Determination on a Deictic Basis: the Case of Romance Languages.” In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by Gabriele Diewald and Elena Smirnova, 223–248. Berlin, New-York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 2000. “Procedural encoding of explicatures by the Modern Greek particle taha .” In Pragmatic Markers and Propositional attitude, ed. by Gisle Andersen and Thorstein Fretheim, 119–144. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jary, Mark. 2010. Assertion. Basingstoke; New-York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Assertion, Relevance and the Declarative Mood.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern, 267–289. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. London. New York: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: an Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2007. “Commitment and Subjectivity in the Discourse of Opinion Columns and Leading Articles, a Corpus Study.” RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 11: 82–98. (special issue titled Different Approaches to Newspaper Opinion Discourse, ed. by Isabel Alonso Belmonte (ed.)).Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana Isabel. 2011. “Epistemic Legitimizing Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 789–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, Olivier and Dan Sperber. 2009. “The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance towards Deception.” Cognition 1121: 367–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, Teenie. 1989. “Metaphor and the Grammaticalization of Evidentials.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 151: 215–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. ““Optimal Relevance” as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic Vigilance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 251: 20–45.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 2013. “Is a Speaker-Based Pragmatics Possible? Or How Can a Hearer Infer a Speaker’s Commitment?” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 84–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morency, Patrick, Oswald, Steve and Louis de Saussure. 2008. “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221: 197–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nølke, Henning. 1994. La Dilution Linguistique des Responsabilités: Essai de Description Polyphonique des Marqueurs Evidentiels il semble que et il paraît que. In Les Sources du Savoir et leurs Marques Linguistiques, ed. by Patrick Dendale and Liliane Tasmowski, 84–94. Montrouge: Larousse.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues.” In The Expression of Modality, ed. by William Frawley, 1–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve. 2011. “From Interpretation to Consent: Arguments, Beliefs and Meaning.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 806–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2012. “Epistemic Vigilance, Cautious Optimism and Sophisticated Understanding.” Research in Language 10 (4): 365–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2000a. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
. 2000b. “On Speech-Act Modality.” Journal of Pragmatics 321: 519–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Epistemic Modality and Truth Conditions.” Lingua 1161: 1688–1702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola. 2008. “ Certamente and Sicuramente. Encoding Dynamic and Discursive Aspects of Commitment in Italian.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221: 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Louis de. 2011. Discourse Analysis, Cognition and Evidentials. Discourse Studies 13 (6): 781–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Clément, Fabrice, Heintz, Christophe, Mascaro, Olivier, Mercier, Hugo; Origgi, Gloria and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25 (4): 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. “Approaching Modality from the Perspective of Relevance Theory.” Language Sciences 25 (6): 657–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth and Richard B. Dasher. 2007. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. “A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language 121: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 1993. “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 901: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Modality and the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Walaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 23–43. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Oswald, Steve
2022. Insinuation is committing. Journal of Pragmatics 198 ► pp. 158 ff. DOI logo
Elder, Chi-Hé
2021. Speaker Meaning, Commitment and Accountability. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
Elder, Chi-Hé
2024. Pragmatic Inference, DOI logo
Ricci, Claudia & Corinne Rossari
2018. Commitment phenomena through the study of evidential markers in Romance languages. Journal of Pragmatics 128 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
2017. Communicative Intentions and Commitments. In Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 14], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
2017. Establishing Commitments Between Ambiguity and Misquotation. In Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 14], ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 june 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.