Skip to main content

The Multimodal Marking of Evidentiality: Pragmemes of Circumstantial Inference and Mandarin Written News Report

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 9))

Abstract

Circumstantial evidentiality refers to the semantic-pragmatic-grammatical encoding of an inference which has been drawn on some physical evidence surrounding the speech participants (cf. Squartini, Linguistics 46(5):917–947, 2008; J Pragmat 44(15):2116–2128, 2012; Cornillie, Funct Lang 16(1):44–62, 2009). Reportative evidentiality corresponds to the pragmatic-semantic-grammatical marking of a proposition as a piece of information the SP/W has been told by someone (i.e. Willett, Stud Lang 12(1):57–91, 1988; Aikhenvald, Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004; Tantucci, J Pragmat 57:210–230, 2013).

This study will shed new light on the multimodal encoding of both by looking at the evidential meaning which emerges from the interplay of a constative speech act and the physical or socio-cultural situation in which this speech act occurs. The first part of this article is dedicated to some prototypical instances of circumstantial evidentiality. I will argue that the physical situation where a constative speech act occurs crucially constitutes the real evidential marker of a circumstantial-evidential utterance, regardless of the semantic-pragmatic-grammatical encoding of the proposition. I will propose that this sort of unescapable correspondence between a constative speech-act and the physical situation where this is realized, represents a felicitous example of evidential pragmeme (cf. Mey, Pragmatics: an introduction. 2nd ed. Vol. Blackwell, Oxford, 2001; J Pragmat 42(11):2882–2888, 2010; Capone, J Pragmat 37(9):1355–1371, 2005; J Pragmat 40(6):1019–1040, 2008; J Pragmat 42(2):377–391, 2010 on the notion of pragmemes), viz. the evidential meaning of a proposition that is obtained as the result of being conveyed ‘in the situation’.

In the second part of this study I will focus on reportative evidentiality. Concerning this latter domain, it is traditionally expected that new information occurring in news report registers should predictably appear in the form of an evidential construction or strategy. Contrary to this common assumption, I will provide corpus-based evidence showing that this is not the case. Focusing on the news report section of the written corpus of Mandarin LCMC (Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese (See http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/corpus/LCMC/ for more information. Last accessed 20/10/15)), this study aims at showing that new information in Mandarin news report often tends to occur as an assertive speech act, and only subsequently marked as an evidential. I will propose that this recurring pattern corresponds to a conventionalized pragmeme of written news report in Mandarin Chinese. Namely, the situated context where new information comes into play (i.e. news report articles from newspapers, news blogs/websites), together with the conventionalized expectation of a subsequent evidential marking, constitute a standardized pattern of news report in written Mandarin Chinese. As a result, the both situational and textual matrix of this pragmeme allows the writer to convey reportative evidentiality even in cases where a proposition formally occurs as a bare assertion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The latter is said to refer to Aikhenvald’s category (2004) of assumed evidentiality.

  2. 2.

    In (9) the epistemic modal potere is acceptable as it expresses a comparatively lower commitment to the evaluation, which can clearly map the meaning of a conjecture.

  3. 3.

    See McEnery and Xiao (2004) for more information about this corpus.

  4. 4.

    The apostrophe indicates that P’ is a different proposition from P.

  5. 5.

    Stands for evidential stance.

  6. 6.

    Stands for assertive stance.

References

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas, F. (1938). Language. In F. Boas (Ed.), General anthropology (pp. 124–145). New York: D. C. Heath Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1355–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2008). Belief reports and pragmatic intrusion (the case of null appositives). Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1019–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2010). On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes). Journal of Pragmatics, 42(2), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, H. (2001). A typology of evidential markers in sinitic languages. In H. Chappell (Ed.), Chinese grammar: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 56–85). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornillie, B. (2007). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-) auxiliaries: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16(1), 44–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD. Palo Alto: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, R. (1997). La estructura categorial de los evidenciales en el Quechua Wanka. Lima: Instituto Linguistico de Verano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, R. (1999). The structure of evidential categories in Wanka Quechua. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guentchéva, Z. (Ed.). (1996). L’énonciation médiatisée. Louvain: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guentchéva, Z., & Londaburu, J. (Eds.). (2007). L’énonciation médiatisée (Vol. 2). Louvain: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 213–241). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzon, D. (1998). The speech act status of incitement: Perlocutionary acts revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(5), 571–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazard, G. (1996). Le médiatif en persan. In Z. Guentchéva (Ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée (pp. 21–30). Louvain: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazard, G. (1999). Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology, 3(1), 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazard, G. (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEnery, A., & Xiao, Z. (2004). The Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese: A corpus for monolingual and contrastive language study. Religion, 17, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mey, J. L. (2010). Reference and the pragmeme. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2882–2888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, T. (1996). Fishing for exactness. SCSUG 96, Austin, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, K. L. (1954/1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulte, W. (1985). The experienced and non experienced past in Cherokee. International Journal of American Linguistics, 51, 543–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Squartini, M. (2008). Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian. Linguistics, 46(5), 917–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squartini, M. (2012). Evidentiality in interaction: The concessive use of the Italian future between grammar and discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(15), 2116–2128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantucci, V. (2013). Interpersonal evidentiality: The Mandarin V-过guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the ‘source of information’. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 210–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantucci, V. (2015a). Traversativity and grammaticalization: The aktionsart of 过guo as a lexical source of evidentiality. Chinese Language and Discourse, 6(1), 57–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantucci, V. (2015b). Epistemic inclination and factualization: A synchronic and diachronic study on the semantic gradience of factuality. Language and Cognition, 7(3), 371–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantucci, V. (2016a). Towards a typology of constative speech acts: Actions beyond evidentiality, epistemic modality and factuality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(2), 181–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantucci, V. (2016b). Textual factualization: The phenomenology of assertive reformulation and presupposition during a speech event. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantucci, V. (2016c). Immediate and extended intersubjectification in language change: Beyond the opposition between theory-theory and simulation-theory. In O.'. N. Sean (Ed.), Dualism, platonism and voluntarism: Explorations at the quantum, microscopic, mesoscopic and symbolic neural levels. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1), 57–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vittorio Tantucci .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tantucci, V. (2016). The Multimodal Marking of Evidentiality: Pragmemes of Circumstantial Inference and Mandarin Written News Report. In: Allan, K., Capone, A., Kecskes, I. (eds) Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43490-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43491-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics