In:The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 255–275
Evidential fictive interaction (in Ungarinyin and Russian)
Published online: 1 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.13spr
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.13spr
This chapter introduces and examines the notion of “evidential fictive participants” and their grammatical expression in utterances of fictive interaction. It focuses on fictive direct speech constructions and draws on examples from the Australian Aboriginal language Ungarinyin and Russian. After presenting data from these languages the chapter suggests that through the notion of participants fictive interaction forms a framework for grammatical typology. This framework has both a strong philosophical and analytical foundation and allows for an integrated approach to grammatical categories based on their relation to the conversation frame.
Keywords: evidentiality, participant types, Russian, Ungarinyin, verbal categories
References (57)
Bakhtin, M. (1986a). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emmerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas. Translated by V.W. McGee.
. (1986b). The problem of the text in linguistics, philology, and the human sciences: An experiment in philosophical analysis. In C. Emmerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), V.W. McGee (trans.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 103–131). Austin: University of Texas.
Besnier, N. (1993). Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae Atoll. In J.H. Hill, & J.T. Irvine (Eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse (pp. 161–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boye, K., & Harder, P. (2012). A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88(1), 1–44.
Buchstaller, I., & van Alphen, I. (2012). Preface: Introductory remarks on new and old quotatives. In I. Buchstaller, & I. van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 11–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clift, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(5), 569–595.
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.
Daiber, T. (2010). Quotativmarker im Russischen (tipo/tipa). Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 55(1), 69–89.
de Haan, F. (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 83–101.
Donaldson, T. (1980). Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donohue, M. & Wichmann, S. (Eds.) (2008). The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Du Bois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ducrot, O. (2009). Slovenian lectures: Introduction into argumentative semantics. Digitalna Knjižnica/Dissertationes 6. Ljubljana: Pedagoški Inštitut.
Fludernik, M. (1991). Shifters and deixis: Some reflections on Jakobson, Jespersen, and reference. Semiotica, 86(3/4), 193–230.
Guerrero, L. (2008). Alternative expressions of “want” complements. In R.D. Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (pp. 321–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Güldemann, T. (2008). Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haßler, G. (2002). Evidentiality and reported speech in Romance languages. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse, A meeting ground for different linguistic domains (pp. 143–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Irvine, J.T. (1996). Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse (pp. 131–159). Chicago: 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.
Landragin, F., Poibeau, T., & Victorri, B. (2012). ANALEC: A new tool for the dynamic annotation of textual data. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M.U. Dogan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’12). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Larson, M.L. (1978). The Functions of Reported Speech in Discourse. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Loughnane, R. (2005). Reported speech constructions in Golin. In N. Evans, J. Besold, H. Stoakes, & A. Lee (Eds.), Materials on golin: Grammar, texts and dictionary (pp. 131–152). Melbourne: Department of Linguistics and Applied Lingustics, The University of Melbourne.
McGregor, W.B. (2007). A desiderative complement construction in Warrwa. In J. Siegel, J. Lynch, & D. Eades (Eds.), Language description, history and development (pp. 27–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34, 57–111.
Munro, R., Ludwig, R., Sauerland, U., & Fleck, D.W. (2012). Reported speech in Matses: Perspective persistence and evidential narratives. International Journal of American Linguistics, 78(1), 41–75.
Mushin, I. (2000). Evidentiality and deixis in narrative retelling. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 927–957.
Nølke, H., Fløttum, K., & Norén, C. (2004). ScaPoLine: La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kime.
Padučeva, E.V. (2010). Pokazateli čužoj reči: mol i deskat’
. Izvestija RAN. Serija literatury i jazyka, 70(3), 13–19.
Pascual, E. (2002). Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.
. (2014). Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reesink, G.P. (1993). ‘Inner speech’ in Papuan languages. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, 24, 217–225.
Romaine, S., & Lange, D. (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66(3), 227–279.
Rumsey, A. (1982). An intra-sentence grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Number 86 in B. Canberra: Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
San Roque, L., & Loughnane, R. (2012). The New Guinea highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology, 16, 111–167.
Saxena, A. (1988). On syntactic convergence: The case of the verb ‘say’ in Tibeto-Burman. In Proceedings of the
Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society
, 375–388.
Sergeeva, E.N. (2010).
Tipa kak èvidencial’nyj marker v russkoj razgovornoj reči. In N.N. Kazanskij (Ed.), Acta Linguistica Petropolitana: Trudy instituta lingvističeskix issledovanij, Volume IV, 149–153.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K.H. Basso, & H.A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11–55). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico press.
Smith, C.S. (2010). Accounting for subjectivity (point of view). In R.P. Meier, H. Aristar-Dry, & E. Destruel (Eds.), Text, time, and context, Studies in linguistics and philosophy (pp. 371–393). Dordrecht: Springer.
Spronck, S. (2012). Minds divided: Speaker attitudes in quotatives. In I. Buchstaller, & I. Van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 71–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2015a). Refracting views: How to construct complex perspective in reported speech and thought in Ungarinyin. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 68(2), 165–185.
. (2015b). Reported speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and social cognition in a language of the Kimberley region, Western Australia. Ph.D. dissertation, The Australian National University.
Thompson, S.A. (1987). “Subordination” and narrative event structure. In R.S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 435–454). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
Verstraete, J.C. (2011). The functions of represented speech and thought in Umpi- thamu narratives. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 31(4), 491–517.
Vicente, A., & Martinez Manrique, F. (2011). Inner speech: Nature and functions. Philosophy Compass, 6(3), 209–219.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Kisiel, Anna & Alena Kolyaseva
Kolyaseva, Alena
Geurts, Bart
Spronck, Stef & Daniela Casartelli
Gawne, Lauren & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
2020. Reported speech in earthquake narratives from six Tibeto-Burman languages. Studies in Language 44:2 ► pp. 461 ff.
Sandler, Sergeiy & Esther Pascual
2019. In the beginning there was conversation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 250 ff.
Kolyaseva, Alena & Kristin Davidse
Spronck, Stef
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.
