Stance as participant structure
A Jakobsonian approach to the pragmatics
and semantics of evidentiality
Jakobson (1957) bases the analysis of mood on a three-part structure that
crucially involves two participant variables. Although the definition of evidentiality
in Jakobson (1957) differs in some fundamental ways, it also allows for
the explication of a participant structure inherent in evidential meanings. In
this paper I argue that by exploring the interaction between these participant
structures in multiple-perspective constructions and in reported speech, the
framework proposed in Jakobson (1957) enables us to systematically examine
phenomena that are typically assumed to arise in evidential expressions as pragmatic
effects, particularly ‘commitment effects’ and evidential interpretations
of modals. I propose that this approach present us with a principled account
of stance meanings (Du Bois 2007), more particularly, of the semantic and
pragmatic interaction between modal and evidential meanings, based on their
semantic structure.
References (46)
Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2015. “Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories.” Linguistic Typology 19 (2): 239–277.
Aronson, H.I. 1991. “Towards a typology of verbal categories.” In New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, ed. by L.R. Waugh and S. Rudy, 111–131. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Buchstaller, I. 2011. “Quotations across generations: A multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7 (1): 59–92.
Buchstaller, I. 2014. Quotatives: New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications. Oxford etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Coate, H.H.J. 1966. “The Rai and the third eye: North-West Australian beliefs.” Oceania 37 (2): 93–123.
Diewald, G. and E. Smirnova. 2010. “Introduction: Evidentiality in European languages: the lexical-grammatical distinction.” In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by G. Diewald and E. Smirnova, 1–14. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Du Bois, J.W. 2007. “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by R. Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Evans, N. 2006. “View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions.” In Proceedings of the thirty-first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by R.T. Cover and Y. Kim, 93–120. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Evans, N. 2012. “Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach.” In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, ed. by D. Brown, M. Chumakina, and G.G. Corbett, 66–98. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
Faller, M. 2012. “Evidential scalar implicatures.” Linguistics and Philosophy 351: 285–312.
Fludernik, M. 1989. “Jespersen’s shifters: Reflections on deixis and subjectivity in language.” Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 15–161: 97–116.
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Horrack, K. 2014. “He jumped off the bridge CAUS she told him to: Indirect speech as a means of expressing indirect causation in Wubuy.” In Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, ed. by L. Gawne and J. Vaughan,. 211–230. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press.
Irvine, J.T. 1996. “Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles.” In Natural Histories of Discourse, ed. by M. Silverstein and G. Urban, 131–159. Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press.
Jakobson, R. 1957. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Jespersen, O. 1922. Language: Its Nature Development and Origin. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Kockelman, P. 2004. “Stance and subjectivity.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14 (2): 127–150.
Kockelman, P. 2010. Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
McGregor, W.B. 2011. The Nyulnyul language of Dampier Land, Western Australia, Volume 1 and 21. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Nekes, H. and E.A. Worms. 1953. Australian languages. Freiburg: Anthropos Institut.
Nuyts, J., P. Byloo and J. Diepeveen. 2010. “On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten
.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 16–34.
Potts, C. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. 2007a. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33 (2): 165–198.
Potts, C. 2007b. Into the conventional-implicature dimension. Philosophy Compass 2 (4): 665–679.
Rumsey, A. 1990. Wording, meaning and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist 92 (2): 346–361.
San Roque, L. 2008. An introduction to Duna grammar. Ph. D. thesis, The Australian National University.
San Roque, L. 2010. “Origo seeks ego for open relationship: Some issues of perspective and evidential morphology.” Presentation held at the Australian National University, 2nd July 2010.
San Roque, L. and H. Bergqvist (eds.). 2015. Epistemic marking in typological perspective, special issue of STUF – Language Typology and Universals 681.
San Roque, L., S. Floyd, and E. Norcliffe. Forthcoming. “Evidentiality and interrogativity.” Lingua.
San Roque, L. and R. Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 161, 111–167.
Smith, C.S. 2010. “Accounting for subjectivity (point of view).” In Text, Time, and Context, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, ed by R.P. Meier, H. Aristar-Dry, and E. Destruel, 371–393. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
Speas, M. 2004. “Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features.” Lingua 1141: 255–276.
Spronck, S. 2015. “Refracting views: How to construct complex perspective in reported speech and thought in Ungarinyin.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68 (2): 165–185.
Verstraete, J.-C. 2001. “Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (10): 1505–1528.
Verstraete, J.-C. 2005. “Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain.” Journal of Pragmatics 371: 1401–1418.
von Fintel, K. and A.S. Gillies. 2008. “CIA leaks.” Philosophical Review 117 (1): 77–98.
Wierzbicka, A. 1974. “The function of direct and indirect discourse.” Papers in Linguistics 7 (3): 267–307.
Wilkins, D.P. 1986. “Particle/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda).” Journal of Pragmatics 101: 575–596.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Si, Aung & Stef Spronck
2019.
Solega defenestration.
Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 277 ff.
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
2019.
Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain.
Linguistic Typology 23:1
► pp. 119 ff.
Spronck, Stef
2017.
Defenestration: deconstructing the frame-in relation in Ungarinyin.
Journal of Pragmatics 114
► pp. 104 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 october 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.