Cover not available
Part of
Evidence for Evidentiality
Edited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 173–198

Chapter 7
Reportive sollen in an exclusively functional view of evidentiality

| Universiteit Antwerpen, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek – Vlaanderen (FWO)
First, this chapter discusses some problems with a ‘narrow’ view of evidentiality that imposes structural requirements, both in its analysis of evidentiality as a whole and in its analysis of the reportive vs. quotative distinction in particular. It argues instead for a ‘broad’, exclusively functional view where evidentiality is seen as relating to justification for knowledge. On this basis, reportive evidentials are distinguished from quotatives, which are non-evidential forms that attribute information to a source. Second, the chapter substantiates its claims with a case study of specific uses of German sollen ‘shall’ that are analyzed as non-quotative, non-epistemic modal, reportive evidential constructions. Finally, sollen is related to ‘referral’, a newly-coined concept that captures the functional relation between quotatives and reportives.
Keywords: German sollen , quotative, referral, reportive
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A narrow view
    • 2.1Evidentiality
    • 2.2Reportives, quotatives, and reported speech
    • 2.3Analytical difficulties
  • 3.A broad view
    • 3.1Evidentiality (and related categories)
    • 3.2Reportives, quotatives, and reported speech
  • 4.Case study: soll
    • 4.1Excursus: evidentiality in European languages
    • 4.2 soll: descriptive analysis
    • 4.3A reportive evidential
    • 4.4A non-epistemic-modal epistemic modal
  • 5.Conclusions and the notion of referral
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.08van
References (85)
References
Aikhenvald, A. 2003a. Evidentiality in Tariana. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54] (131–164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b. Evidentiality in typological perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54] (1–31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006. Evidentiality in grammar. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics Vol. IV (320–325). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language Sciences, 30(4), 383–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (273–312). New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2006. Epistemological positioning and evidentiality in English news discourse: A text-driven approach. Text & Talk, 26(6), 635–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botne, R.. 1997. Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Lega. Studies in Language, 21, 509–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K. 2010a. Evidence for what? Evidentiality and scope. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 63(4), 290–307.Google Scholar
2010b. Semantic maps and the identification of cross-linguistic generic categories: Evidentiality and its relation to epistemic modality. Linguistic Discovery, 8(1), 4–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 43]. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P. 2009. Evidentiality. Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language, 16(1) 9–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
Carlsen, L. 1994. Redewiedergebende Sätze mit präpositionalen Quellenangaben. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 95(4), 467–492.Google Scholar
Chirikba, V. 2003. Evidential category and evidential strategy in Abkhaz. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54] (243–272). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chojnicka, J. 2012. Reportive evidentiality and reported speech: Is there a boundary? Evidence of the Latvian oblique. In A. Usoniené, N. Nau, & I. Dabašinskiené (Eds.), Multiple perspectives in linguistic research on Baltic languages (170–192). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. 2007. Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi)auxiliaries. A cognitive-functional approach [Application of cognitive linguistics series 5]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. In L. Ekberg, & C. Paradis (Eds.), [URL] ,16(1), 44–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, P., & L. Tasmowski. 2001. Le conditionnel en français. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 208]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. 2010a. Abgrenzung von Modalität und Evidentialität im heutigen Deutsch. In A. Katny, & A. Socka (Eds.), Modalität/Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht [Danziger Beiträge zur Germanistik 30] (113–131). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2010b. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010c. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. In G. Diewald, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 49] (1–14). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Evidentialität als neues Feld der germanistischen Forschung neben der Modalität – Einleitung zu den Beiträgen. In G. Diewald, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Modalität und Evidentialität – Modality and evidentiality [FOKUS. Linguistisch-Philologische Studien 37] (1–10). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
2012. From deontic to reportive and quotative: the case of German sollen. Presentation at New Reflections on Grammaticalisation V, Edinburgh, July 16–19.Google Scholar
2013. Kategorien der Redewiedergabe im Deutschen: Konjunktiv I versus sollen . Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 41(3), 1–29.Google Scholar
Ekberg, L., & Paradis, C. 2009. Editorial. Evidentiality in language and cognition. In L. Ekberg, & C. Paradis (Eds.), Evidentiality in language and cognition: Special Issue of Functions of Language , 16(1), 5–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, M. 2011. Reportative evidentials and modal subordination. Presentation at Chronos, Birmingham, April 18–20.
Frawley, W.. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giacalone R. A., & Topadze, M. 2007. The coding of evidentiality: A comparative look at Georgian and Italian. Rivista di Linguistica Italiana, 19(1), 7–38.Google Scholar
Glas, R. 1984. Sollen im heutigen Deutsch: Bedeutung und Gebrauch in der Schriftsprache. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 27]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Güldemann, T. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: a synchronic and diachronic survey [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 34]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, F. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 83–101. <[URL]>Google Scholar
2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. In M. Reis, & R. Müller (Eds.):. Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft, 9, 201–216. <[URL]>Google Scholar
2005a. Coding of evidentiality. In M. Haspelmath, & M. S. Dryer (Eds.), World atlas of language structures. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] Google Scholar
2005b. Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. In M. Haspelmath, & M. S. Dryer (Eds.), World atlas of language structures. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, A. 2005. Evidentialität, Modalität und interpretative Verwendung. In B. Hansen, & P. Karlik (Eds.), Modality in Slavonic languages. New perspectives (115–125). München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol . I (17–35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, S. (Ed.) 1971. Der Konjunktiv in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen an ausgewählten Texten[Heutiges Deutsch I/1]. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, G. 1976. Die indirekte Rede und mit ihr konkurrierende Formen der Redeerwähnung[Heutiges Deutsch III/1]. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Kwon, I. 2012. Viewpoints in the Korean verbal complex: Evidence, perception, assessment, and time. Phd dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 359–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 2002a. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (1–18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002b [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Second, revised edition [ASSidUE 9]. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar
Leiss, E. 2009. Drei Spielarten der Epistemizität, drei Spielarten der Evidentialität und drei Spielarten des Wissens. In W. Abraham, & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77] (3–24). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Letnes, O. 1997. Sollen als Indikator für Redewiedergabe. In F. Debus, & O. Leirbukt (Eds.), Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache III. Aspekte der Modalität im Deutschen – auch in kontrastiver Sicht [Germanistische Linguistik 136] (119–134). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
2008. Quotatives sollen und Sprecherhaltung. In O. Letnes, E. Maagerø, & H. Vater (Eds.),Modalität und Grammatikalisierung – Modality and grammaticalization [FOKUS. Linguistisch-Philologische Studien 34] (23–37). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
2011. Über werden und sollen als modale und/oder evidentielle Marker. In G. Diewald, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Modalität und Evidentialität – Modality and evidentiality [FOKUS. Linguistisch-Philologische Studien 37] (109–123). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. 1986. Direct speech and indirect speech: A functional study. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct speech and indirect speech [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 31] (29–46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín Arrese, J. I., Haßler, G., & Carretero, M. Eds. 2017. Evidentiality revisited. Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives. [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 271]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marschall, M. 2002. Indirekte Rede ohne–wiedergabe. In D. Baudot (Ed.), Redewiedergabe, Redeerwähnung. Formen und Funktionen des Zitierens und Reformulierens im Text [Eurogermanistik 17] (27–40). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Maslova, E. 2003. Evidentiality in Yukaghir. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54] (219–236). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortelmans, T. 1999. Die Modalverben sollen und müssen im heutigen Deutsch unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Status als subjektivierten ‘grounding predications’ ,. PhD University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
2009. Erscheinungsformen der indirekten Rede im Niederländischen und Deutschen: zou-, soll(te)- und der Konjunktiv I. In W. Abraham, & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77] (171–187). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Mortelmans, T. & Vanderbiesen, J. 2011. Dies will ein Parlamentarier aus zuverlässiger Quelle erfahren haben. Reportives wollen zwischen sollen und dem Konjunktiv I der indirekten Rede. In G. Diewald, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Modalität und Evidentialität – Modality and Evidentiality [FOKUS. Linguistisch-Philologische Studien 37] (69–88). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: narrative retelling [Pragmatics & Beyond, new series 87]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H.. 2005. Book review. Aikhenvald, A. 2004. Evidentiality. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18, 379–388.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R.. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pérennec, M. -H. 2002. Fiktive und nicht-fiktive Texte. In D. Baudot (Ed.), Redewiedergabe, Redeerwähnung. Formen und Funktionen des Zitierens und Reformulierens im Text [Eurogermanistik 17] (41–53). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, P., & Stathi, K. 2010. What counts as an evidential unit? The case of evidential complex constructions in Italian and Modern Greek. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 63(4), 333–344.Google Scholar
Plungian, V. A.. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, H. 1989. Referat – vor allem Berichtete Rede – im Deutschen und Norwegischen. In W. Abraham, & T. Janssen (Eds.), Tempus – Aspekt – Modus. Die lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen (183–223). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ramat, P. 2012a. Review. Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E., Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalisation. Linguistic Typology, 16, 167–175.Google Scholar
2012b. Review. G. Diewald, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Linguistic Typology, 16, 175–181.Google Scholar
de Reuse, W. J. 2003. Evidentiality in Western Apache (Athabaskan). In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54] (79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schenner, M. 2009. Semantics of evidentials: German reportative modals. In S. Blaho, C. Constantinescu, & B. le Bruyn (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XVI (179–198). Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
2010. Embedded evidentials in German. In G. Diewald, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages[Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 49] (157–186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Smirnova, E., & Diewald, G. 2011. Indirekte Rede zwischen Modus, Modalität und Evidentialität. In G. Diewald, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Modalität und Evidentialität – Modality and Evidentiality [FOKUS. Linguistisch-Philologische Studien 37] (89–108). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Squartini, M. 2001. The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance. Studies in Language, 25(2), 297–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic modality in Romance. Lingua, 114, 873–895. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian. Linguistics, 46(5), 917–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, S. N.. 1990. Kannada. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, P. M. 2003. Evidentiality in Shipibo-Konibo, with a comparative overview of the category in Panoan. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54] (33–62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderbiesen, J. 2014. wollen: On the verge between quotative and reportive evidential. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2, 167–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Mixed points of view and the quotative-reportive cline in German reported speech. In B. Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu, & A. Verhagen (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning. [Cognitive Linguistics Research 55] (41–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vliegen, M. 2010. Verbbezogene Redewiedergabe: Subjektivität, Verknüpfung und Verbbedeutung. Deutsche Sprache, 38(3), 210–233.Google Scholar
von Roncador, M. (Ed.) 1988. Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede. Nichtwörtliche direkte Rede, erlebte Rede, logophorische Konstruktionen und Verwandtes[Linguistische Arbeiten 192]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, B. 2010. Hearsay in European languages: toward an integrative account of grammatical and lexical marking. In G. Diewald, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages[Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 49] (59–130). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiemer, B., & Stathi, K. 2010. The database of evidential markers in European languages. A bird’s eye view of the conception of the database (the template and problems hidden beneath it). STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 63(4), 275–289.Google Scholar
Willett, T.. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1), 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar