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. 193–216
Stance as participant structure
A Jakobsonian approach to the pragmatics and semantics of evidentiality
Published online: 24 March 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.09spr
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.09spr
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.
Keywords: reported speech, Roman O. Jakobson, semantics, stance, pragmatics
References (46)
. 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.
Coate, H.H.J. 1966. “The Rai and the third eye: North-West Australian beliefs.” Oceania 37 (2): 93–123.
Cornillie, B. 2009. “Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 9–43.
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.
. 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.
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.
Haßler, G. 2002. “Evidentiality and reported speech in Romance languages.” In Reported Discourse, A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, ed. by T. Güldemann and M. von Roncador, 143–172. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
. 2010. Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
McGregor, W.B. 2007. “A desiderative complement construction in Warrwa.” In Language description, history and development, ed. by J. Siegel, J. Lynch and D. Eades, 27–40. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2011. The Nyulnyul language of Dampier Land, Western Australia, Volume 1 and 21. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Mel’čuk, I. 1991. “Toward a universal calculus of inflectional categories: On Roman Jakobson’s trail.” In New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, ed. by L.R. Waugh and S. Rudy, 85–109. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
San Roque, L. 2008. An introduction to Duna grammar. Ph. D. thesis, The Australian National University.
. 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. 2012. “Minds divided, speaker attitudes in quotatives.” In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives, ed. by I. Buchstaller and I. Van Alphen, 71–116. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2015. “Refracting views: How to construct complex perspective in reported speech and thought in Ungarinyin.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68 (2): 165–185.
. Forthcoming. “Evidential fictive interaction in Ungarinyin and Russian.” In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, ed. by E. Pascual and S. Sandler. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vandelanotte, L. 2006. “Speech or thought representation and subjectification, or on the need to think twice.” Belgian journal of linguistics 201: 137–168.
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.
. 2005. “Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain.” Journal of Pragmatics 371: 1401–1418.
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
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 2025. 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.
