Evidential fictive interaction (in Ungarinyin and Russian)

Abstract

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.

In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar

“…These strategies are by no means a complete list of possible structural prompts for meaning extensions (e.g., prosodic distinctions are likely to occur more widely as well; also cf. Spronck, 2016), but they hold an important implication: each of the properties in ( 36) is associated with other aspects of the classification of reported speech constructions. For example, the indexical properties of reported speech are commonly associated with the opposition between direct speech and indirect speech (as in 37 and 38, respectively).…”

First saying, then believing: The pragmatic roots of folk psychology

“…Another example is from Ungarinyin, which like Warrwa is an Aboriginal language spoken in North‐Western Australia, though the two languages are not related: ngurrba nya 2 ‐nga 1 ‐yi‐minda a 1 ‐ma jirri hit her 2 I 1 will take he 1 say he (Spronck, 2016, p. 259) According to Spronck, this sentence can be used to convey a range of meanings, including: “He says: ‘I will hit her’”, “He thinks: ‘I will hit her’”, “He thinks that he will hit her”, and “He wants to hit her”.…”

In the beginning there was conversation

“…Prior studies suggest that structures that fully shift to the deixis of (fictive) conversational participants, such as direct speech, are especially pervasive in texts and languages that stand close to the oral roots of human culture (see overview and references in Pascual 2014, 29-57, 83-112). Thus, one common feature of a large number of primary oral languages from different families is the lack, or infrequent use, of indirect speech and the existence of unmarked or obligatory grammatical forms that transparently developed from direct speech to express what is not a report of previously produced discourse (Guldemann and von Roncador 2002;de Vries 2003;Spronck 2016;van der Voort 2016). Grammaticalized forms of fictive direct speech are also abundant and unmarked in signed languages (e.g.…”