Cover not available

In:Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 69–94

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 3
Evidential participles and epistemic vigilance

 | Universidad de Sevilla
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.03crz
Abstract
For communicated contents to be accepted by the audience, they have to pass the filters of epistemic vigilance mechanisms, which check the credibility and reliability of communicators and the information provided. Communicators may lack adequate evidence about the information they dispense. One of the ways to indicate to the audience that they are uncertain about some information (rather than to put their reputation as reliable speakers at risk) is to use participial adjectives, such as alleged or suspected. The chapter discusses the features of such adjectives and argues that they specialise for marking the speaker’s epistemic stance towards the information communicated – a function they share with other evidentials. Unlike many other expressions denoting epistemic stance, however, they appear to be confined in their scope to the noun phrase in which they occur.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Things we do with words
  • 3.Style and relevance
  • 4.Properties of prototypical participial adjectives
  • 5.On the evidential function of some past participles
    • 5.1Evidentials and epistemic vigilance
    • 5.2What evidential participles communicate
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (91)
References
Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 2(2), 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature, 2, 101–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Relevance, poetic effects and social goals: A reply to Culpeper. Language and Literature, 3, 49–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blass, R. (1989). Grammaticalisation of interpretive use: The case of ré in Sissala. Lingua, 79, 299–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Relevance Relations in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Börjars, K., & Burridge, K. (2001). Introducing English Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua, 175–176, 154–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clément, F., Koenig, M., & Harris, P. (2004). The ontogenesis of trust. Mind & Language, 19(4), 360–379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, P., & Hollo, C. (2000). English Grammar: An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. (2007). Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)Auxiliaries: A Cognitive-functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corriveau, K., & Harris, P. (2009). Preschoolers continue to trust a more accurate informant 1 week after exposure to accuracy information. Developmental Science, 12(1), 188–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1991). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1994). Why relevance theory does not explain ‘The relevance of reformulations’. Language and Literature, 3, 43–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. (2001). Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 339–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal, V. (1998). Politeness: A relevant issue for relevance theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11, 45–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice. Power & the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1993). A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–59). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. M. V., & Guéron, J. (1999). English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2014). Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heyman, G. D. (2008). Children’s critical thinking when learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 344–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, J., & Brown, D. F. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 523–546. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1988). English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (1992). Sentential adverbs and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 193–214.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Parentheticals and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 193–210.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imai, K. (1998). Intonation and relevance. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Itani, R. (1994). A relevance-based analysis of hearsay particles: Japanese utterance-final tte. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 379–400.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). A relevance-based analysis of hearsay particles: With special reference to Japanese sentence-final particle tte. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications (pp. 47–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jary, M. (1998). Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Two types of implicatures: Material and behavioural. Mind & Language, 28(5), 638–660. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5), 435-452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koenig, M., & Harris, P. (2007). The basis of epistemic truth: Reliable testimony or reliable sources? Episteme, 4(3), 264–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 25(3), 249–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manes, J., & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 115–132). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marandin, J.-M. (1987). Des mots et des actions : ‘Compliment’, ‘complimenter’ et l’action de complimenter. Lexique, 5, 65–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mascaro, O., & Sperber, D. (2009). The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 112(3), 367–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (2007). Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2013). ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: The role of epistemic vigilance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 25, 20–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyers, C. (Ed.). (2010). Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelian, K. (2013). The evolution of testimony: Receiver vigilance, speaker honesty and the reliability of communication. Episteme, 10(1), 37–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (1993). Relevance and conversation. Lingua, 90(1-2), 149-171.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, N. (1980). The speech act of complimenting. In E. Hovdhaugen (Ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics (pp. 296–304). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The Expression of Modality (pp. 1–26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Origgi, G. (2013). Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 26(2), 221–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, S. (2011). From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning. Discourse Studies, 13(6), 806–814. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Rhetoric and cognition: Pragmatic constraints on argument processing. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory. Recent Development, Current Challenges and Future Directions (pp. 261–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. (2009). Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 182–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Epistemic vigilance, cautious optimism and sophisticated understanding. Research in Language, 10(4), 365–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure in intercultural communication: From focus on speakers to focus on hearers. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51(1), 23–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). On the role of vigilance in the interpretation of puns. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, 28(3), 469–490. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Mood and Modality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piskorska, A. (2016). Perlocutionary effects and relevance theory. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory. Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions (pp. 287–305). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rich, C. (2015). Writing and Reporting News: A Coaching Method. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rouchota, V. (1995). Discourse connectives: What do they link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 199-212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.) (2008). Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding. In J. Khalfa (Ed.), What Is Intelligence? (pp. 179-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Speakers are honest because hearers are vigilant. Reply to Kourken Michaelian. Episteme, 10(1), 61–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Mercier, H. (2012). Reasoning as a social competence. In H. Landemore, & J. Elster (Eds.), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms (pp. 368–392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, O., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stovall, J. G. (2004). Journalism: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trotter, D. (1992). Analysing literary prose: The relevance of relevance theory. Lingua, 87(1-2), 11-27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Unger, C. (2016). Evidentials, genre and epistemic vigilance. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory. Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions (pp. 239–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Pragmatics and Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1995). Is there a maxim of truthfulness? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 197–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 127-161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Modality and the conceptual-procedural distinction. In E. Wałaszewska, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, (pp. 23–44). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua, 175–176, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1–2), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002a). Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 249–287.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443), 583–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In N. Wolfson, & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 82–95). Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics, 13(3), 391–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yus Ramos, F. (1999a). Towards a pragmatic taxonomy of misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 38, 217–239.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2022. Ad hoc concepts, affective attitude and epistemic stance. Pragmatics & Cognition 29:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2024. Irina T. Pandarova, Revisiting sentence adverbials and relevance (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 334). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2021. Pp. ix + 254. ISBN 9789027213730.. English Language and Linguistics 28:4 ► pp. 849 ff. DOI logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2025. Attacking epistemic personhood on Twitter/X. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 13:1 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue