Cover not available
Article published In:
Evidentiality, Modality and Grammaticalization
Edited by Eric Mélac
[Studies in Language 48:3] 2024
► pp. 575–607

Evidentiality, discourse prominence and grammaticalization

ORCID logo | University of Copenhagen
This paper seeks to answer three questions: (1) What is the difference between grammatical and lexical indications of information source? (2) What qualifies an element for grammaticalization as an evidential? (3) How can we identify grammatical evidentials and instances of evidential grammaticalization? The answers proposed are as follows: (1) The difference between grammatical and lexical indications of information source is a difference between indications conventionalized as discourse secondary and indications conventionalized as potentially discourse primary. (2) A candidate for grammaticalization as an evidential must (i) have propositional scope, (ii) belong in the conceptual domain of information source, (iii) be frequent enough to pass the threshold for conventionalization, and (iv) be discourse secondary, but not by convention. (3) Grammatical evidentials and instances of evidential grammaticalization can be identified based on focusablity, addressability and modifiability.
Keywords: evidentiality, information source, discourse prominence, grammaticalization, proposition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Outline of a usage-based theory of the grammatical-lexical distinction
  • 3.Evidentials, discourse prominence, and the lexical-grammatical distinction
  • 4.A theory of grammaticalization
  • 5.What qualifies an element for grammaticalization as an evidential?
    • 5.1Structural qualification: Dependency and scope
    • 5.2Functional qualification: Discourse prominence and conceptual domain
    • 5.3Information source as a grammaticalizable concept
  • 6.How to identify grammatical evidentials and cases of evidential grammaticalization
    • 6.1How to identify grammatical evidentials
    • 6.2How to identify cases of evidential grammaticalization
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 21 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23001.boy
References (62)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Information source and evidentiality: What can we conclude? Italian Journal of Linguistics 191. 209–227.Google Scholar
2018. Evidentiality: The framework. In Alexandra Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 1–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik & Grzech, Karolina. 2023. The role of pragmatics in the definition of evidentiality. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 76(1). 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans & Roelien Bastiaanse. 2018. Productie en begrip van voorzetsels bij sprekers met agrammatische en vloeiende afasie [Production and comprehension of prepositions in speakers with agrammatic and fluent aphasia]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 2311. 3–22.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans, Ronald Prins & Jan Vermeulen. 1983. Lexical-semantic versus syntactic disorders in aphasia: The processing of prepositions. Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwerenschap 401. 1–32.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2010. Word classes. In Jae J. Son (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 280–302. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2010a. Evidence for what? Evidentiality and scope. In Björn Wiemer & Katerina Stathi (eds.), Database on evidentiality markers in European languages. Special issue of: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 63(4). 290–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Reference and clausal perception-verb complements. Linguistics 48(2). 391–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010c. Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical status. In Kasper Boye & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language usage and language structure, 73–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Evidentiality: The notion and the term. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 261–272. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023a. Grammaticalization as conventionalization of discourse secondary status: Deconstructing the lexical-grammatical continuum. Transactions of the Philological Society 121(2). 270–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023b. Propositions and States-of-Affairs: A cognitive linguistic approach. In Jutta M. Hartmann & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergelich / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research (Studien zur Deuschen Sprache 84), 85–114. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper, & Roelien Bastiaanse. 2018. Grammatical versus lexical words in theory and aphasia: Integrating linguistics and neurolinguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1). 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Complement-taking predicates, parentheticals and grammaticalization. Language Sciences 881, 101416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23(2–3). 113–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Marie H., Line B. Kristensen, Nicoline M. Vinther & Kasper Boye. 2021. Grammar is background in sentence processing. Language and Cognition 13(1). 128–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspects and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danchev, Andrei & Merja Kytö. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 59–77. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. & Kees Hengeveld. 1991. The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of perception-verb complements. Linguistics 291. 231–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2018. On understanding grammar. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Mechtild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeier. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2011. The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 11, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishkhanyan, Byurakn, Halima Sahraoui, Peter Harder, Jesper Mogensen & Kasper Boye. 2017. Grammatical and lexical pronoun dissociation in French speakers with agrammatic aphasia: A usage-based account and ERF-based hypothesis. Journal of Neurolinguistics 441. 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee. 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization, 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. K. 1969. Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2016. Verum focus. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 290–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André. 1960. Éléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
McKoon, Gail, Roger Ratcliff, Gregory Ward & Richard Sproat. 1993. Syntactic prominence effects on discourse processes. Journal of Memory and Language 321. 593–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mélac, Eric. 2022. The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language and Linguistics 26(2). 331–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. The pragmatic differences between lexical and grammatical evidentiality: A corpus-based study of Tibetan and English. Journal of Pragmatics 2101. 143–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mélac, Eric & Joanna Bialek. This volume. Evidentiality as a grammaticalization passenger.
Messerschmidt, Maria, Kasper Boye, Mathilde M. Overmark, Sofie T. Kristensen & Peter Harder. 2018. Sondringen mellem grammatiske og leksikalske præpositioner [The distinction between grammatical and lexical prepositions]. Ny Forskning i Grammatik 251. 89–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel Lange, Violaine, Maria Messerschmidt, Peter Harder, Hartwig R. Siebner & Kasper Boye. 2017. Planning and production of grammatical and lexical verbs in multi-word messages. PLoS ONE 12(11). e0186685. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1983. The genius of polysynthesis. In James S. Thayer (ed.), North American Indians: Humanistic perspectives. University of Oklahoma Papers in Anthropology 241. 221–242.Google Scholar
. 1998. Yup’ik roots and affixes. In Osahito Miyaoka & Minoru Oshima (eds.), Languages of the North Pacific Rim 41, 63–76. Kyoto: Kyoto University Graduate School of Letters.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2015. Parentheticals and the grammar of complementation. In Stefan Schneider, Julie Glikman & Mathieu Avanzi (eds.), Parenthetical verbs, 13–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Sarah R., Kasper Boye, Roelien Bastiaanse & Violaine Michel Lange. 2019. The production of grammatical and lexical determiners in Broca’s aphasia. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34(8). 1027–1040. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2004. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Premsrirat, Suwilai. 1987. A Khmu grammar. Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics 101. 1–143.Google Scholar
Price, Jessica M. 2008. The use of focus cues in healthy ageing. Glasgow: University of Glasgow PhD dissertation.
Schachter, Paul & Timothy Shopen. 2007. Parts-of-speech systems. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1: Clause structure, 1–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sturt, Patrick, Anthony J. Sanford, Andrew Stewart & Eugene Dawydiak. 2004. Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 111. 882–888. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2007. Attention phenomena. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 264–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1982. From propositional to textual to expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.). Perspectives in historical linguistics, 245–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Petra B. Schumacher. 2019. Discourse prominence: definition and application. Journal of Pragmatics 1541. 117–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2007. Lexical markers of evidentiality in Lithuanian. Italian Journal of Linguistics 191. 173–208.Google Scholar