Where does evidentiality reside? Notes on (alleged) limiting cases: <i>seem</i> and <i>be like</i>

Lampert, Günther; Lampert, Martina

doi:10.1524/stuf.2010.0024

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the lexical evidential markers are not obligatory, their elimination from the contexts above would make the utterances incomplete. In a similar manner to inferential adverbials in English and other languages (Simon-Vandenbergen, Aijmer 2007;Lampert, Lampert 2010;Chojnicka 2012;Wiemer, Kampf 2012), the use of the inferential adverbials above shows that contextual cues play a great role in defining their functions.…”

Section: Inferential Functionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The paper will examine the frequency of the adverbials, their position, scope, functions, co-occurrence with argumentative markers and the type of discourse they occur in. As Lampert and Lampert (2010), Wiemer and Kampf (2012), Usonienė (2013) and Fetzer (2014) have all demonstrated, the functional identification of evidential markers in European languages is to a large extent context dependent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidential adverbials in Lithuanian: a corpus-based study

Ruskan¹

2015

Klbt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examines the functional distribution of the adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly/clearly', tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' and aišku 'clearly/of course' in Lithuanian fiction and academic discourse. The aim of the study is to identify the evidential and/or pragmatic functions of perception and communication-based adverbials which can be traced synchronically to different syntactic environment (a predication manner adverbial and a CTP clause). The paper examines the frequency of these adverbials, their position, scope, functions, cooccurrence with argumentative markers, word class (adverb or non-agreeing adjective) and the type of discourse they occur in. The research is conducted by applying a corpusbased methodology and the data are obtained from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, namely from the subcorpus of fiction, and the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian.The perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'clearly/visibly' and aišku 'clearly/of course' denote inferences drawn from perceptual and conceptual evidence and contribute to persuasive authorial argumentation, while the communication-based adverbial tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' functions as a hearsay marker. The latter may also be used as an epistemic marker which refers to unreal or imagined situations. In contexts of common knowledge, the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' acquires interactional and textual functions and thus reveals traces of pragmaticalisation. In academic discourse, it signals interaction with the addressee and links units of discourse, while in fiction it functions as a speech act modifier in a variety of emotive contexts. The pragmaticalisation of aišku 'clearly/of course' is also marked by its high frequency, positional mobility (initial, medial, final) and scopal variability (clausal, phrasal). Alongside its discrete evidential and pragmatic functions, the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' displays the merger of the two functions. The 105 adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' and tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' do not acquire a pragmatic function, which is indicated by their frequency and position. The results of the present study corroborate the findings of previous studies that common sources of evidential adverbials and pragmatic markers in Lithuanian are verb-based, adjective-based and noun-based CTP clauses.

show abstract

Section: Inferential Functionmentioning

confidence: 75%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Evidential adverbials in Lithuanian: a corpus-based study

Ruskan¹

2015

Klbt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3). Instances without any linguistic mark represent 16% of the examples in our corpus, followed by what Lampert and Lampert (2010) (6), which are formally closer to IRD but show a prosody typical of DRD:…”

Section: Formal Parametersmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In conclusion, in the context of dDRD, prosody could be considered an evidential strategy (a reportative-quotative mechanism, in the terms of Lampert and Lampert, 2010). 7 We must bear in mind, however, that the fact of being also an evidential strategy does not prevent prosody from conveying additional meanings, such as (ideological) distancing from the words uttered or from the person uttering them.…”

Section: Prosody In Dialogical Examples Is It Also Evidential?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expressing evidentiality through prosody? Prosodic voicing in reported speech in Spanish colloquial conversations

Arguedas

2015

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Rarely, however, are such claims substantiated by an explicit indication of the diagnostics used, other than relying on one's intuitions about the language and context, most often on the basis of corpus data. In this context, Lampert and Lampert (2010) ask themselves whether corpus analyses and the collocational properties found therein allow us to draw conclusions about the semantic load of propositional modifiers.…”

Section: Generalized Conversational Implicaturesmentioning

confidence: 99%