Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Making a story make sense: Does evidentiality matter in discourse coherence?

  • SÜMEYRA TOSUN (a1) and JYOTSNA VAID (a2)

Abstract

Evidentiality refers to the linguistic marking of the nature/directness of source of evidence of an asserted event. Some languages (e.g., Turkish) mark source obligatorily in their grammar, while other languages (e.g., English) provide only lexical options for conveying source. The present study examined whether or under what conditions firsthand source information is relied on more than nonfirsthand sources in establishing discourse coherence. Turkish- and English-speaking participants read a series of somewhat incongruous two-sentence narratives and were to come up with a way of completing each narrative so that it would form a coherent story. Each narrative contrasted two source types (firsthand vs. hearsay, firsthand vs. inference, or inference vs. hearsay) and two information types (general vs. particular information) each presented first or second. Analysis of story completions showed greater overall reliance on firsthand information when it was presented second and referred to a particular event. When the firsthand source occurred first and the particular event occurred second, the latter was favored, especially by Turkish participants. Taken together, the findings suggest that evidentiality interacts with information type in establishing discourse coherence and that both firsthand and particular information are relied on more when presented later rather than earlier in discourse.

Copyright

Corresponding author

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Sümeyra Tosun, Department of Psychology, Süleyman Şah University, Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail: stosun@ssu.edu.tr

References

Hide All
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp. 131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aksu-Koc, A. (2000). Some aspects of the acquisition of evidentials in Turkish. In Johanson, L. & Utas, B. (Eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighboring languages (pp. 1528). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aksu-Koc, A., & Alici, D. M. (2000). Understanding sources of beliefs and marking of uncertainty: The child's theory of evidentiality. In Clark, E. V. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 123130). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Aksu-Koç, A., Ögel-Balaban, H., & Alp, I. E. (2009). Evidentials and source knowledge in Turkish. In Fitneva, S. A. & Matsui, T. (Eds.), Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development, new directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 1328). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Aksu-Koc, A., & Slobin, D. (1986). A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 159167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Anderson, L. B. (1986). Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 273312). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Berlin, L. N. (2011a). I think, therefore. . .: Commitment in political testimony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 372383.
Berlin, L. N. (2011b). Redundancy and markers of belief in the discourse of political hearings. Language Sciences, 33, 268279.
Bruine de Bruin, W. (2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118, 245260.
Bruine de Bruin, W., & Keren, G. (2003). Order effects on judgments in sequentially judged options due to the direction of comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 91101.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 4763.
de Haan, F. (1998). The cognitive basis of visual evidentials. In Cienki, A., Luka, B. J., & Smith, M. B. (Eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (pp. 91105). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
de Haan, F. (2001). The place of inference within the evidential system. International Journal of American Linguistics, 67, 193219.
Drummey, A. B., & Newcombe, N. S. (2002). Developmental changes in source memory. Developmental Science, 5, 502513.
Faller, M. T. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Fitneva, S. A. (2001). Epistemic marking and reliability judgments: Evidence from Bulgarian. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 401420.
Fitneva, S. A. (2008). The role of evidentiality in Bulgarian children's reliability judgments. Journal of Child Language, 35, 845868.
Fitneva, S. A. (2009). Evidentiality and trust: The effect of informational goals. In Fitneva, S. A. & Matsui, T. (Eds.), Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development, new directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 4961). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Fox, B. A. (2001). Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11, 167192.
Frank, L. K. (1948). Projective methods. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99156.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (2013). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ginsborne, N., & Holmes, J. (2007). A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics, 11, 129.
Hanks, W. F. (2012). Evidentiality in social interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 3, 169180.
Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Izvorski, R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Lawson, A. & Cho, E. (Eds.), Seventh Conference of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 118). Hamilton, NY: Cornell University CLC Publications.
Johanson, L. (2003). Evidentiality in Turkic. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp. 273291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697720.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237251.
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.
Lazard, G. (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 359367.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matlock, T. (2012). Framing political messages with grammar and metaphor. American Scientist, 100, 478483.
Matsui, T., Yamamoto, T., & McCagg, P. (2006). On the role of language in children's early understanding of others as epistemic beings. Cognitive Development, 21, 158170.
Mithun, M. (1986). Evidential diachrony in Northern Iroquoian. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 89112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mortensen, J. (2006). Epistemic and evidential sentence adverbials in Danish and English: A comparative study. Unpublished dictoral dissertation, Roskilde University.
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mushin, I. (2013). Making knowledge visible: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies, 15, 627645.
Nisbett, R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently. . .and why? New York: Free Press.
Nisbett, R., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., & Reed, H. (1976). Popular induction: Information is not always informative. In Carroll, J. S. & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 227236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nuckolls, J., & Michael, L. (2012). Evidentials and evidential strategies in interactional and sociocultural context. Pragmatics and Society, 3, 181188.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383400.
Ögel, H. (2007). Developments in source monitoring and linguistic encoding of source. Unpublished master's thesis, Bogazici University, Istanbul.
Öztürk, Ö., & Papafragou, A. (2005). The acquisition of evidentiality in Turkish. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 114.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741754.
Slobin, D. I., & Aksu, A. (1982). Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In Hopper, P. (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (pp. 185200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tosun, S., Vaid, J., & Geraci, L. (2013). Does obligatory linguistic marking of source of evidence influence source memory? A Turkish/English investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 121134.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 11241131.
van Dijk, T. (2014). Discourse and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitt, R. J. (2010). Evidentiality, polysemy, and the verbs of perception in English and German. In Diewald, G. & Smirnova, E. (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages (pp. 249278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Whitt, R. J. (2011). (Inter)subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 347360.
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 5197.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed