From LINGUIST List: Vol-13-1976. Jul 25 2002. ISSN 1068-4875.
Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/
E. Ifantidou, _Evidentials & Relevance_.
John Benjamins, x+225pp. ISBN 158811302X.
Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 86.
(Reviewed by S Fitneva, Cornell University).
"Since its inception, relevance theory has established itself as a
major theory in pragmatics. This book expands the domain of
application of the theory into the universe of evidentials."
"Infantidou defines evidentials broadly. She includes under this term
both the marking of the source of knowledge -- as in
(1) I see him coming.
-- and the speaker's commitment to the truth of what is being said -- as in
(2) I guess he is coming.
Any form conveying such meanings is considered an evidential, viz.:
i. words (as above)
ii. morphemes (not available in English)
iii. intonation patterns
(a declarative sentence by itself implies
the commitment of the speaker to what is said)."
"Infantidou sets out to answer three questions about evidentials."
Question 1:
"What is the scope of pragmatic inference in deriving evidential
meaning relative to _decoding_ this meaning?"
Question 2:
"Is the meaning of evidentials _truth-conditional_?"
Question 3:
"Is evidential information implicitly
or explicitly communicated?"
"Each of these questions is central to the study of meaning. Putting
them together and identifying a single theory - the relevance
framework - that can provide answers to all of them is a major
contribution of the monograph."
"With these questions as the backdrop, Infantidou reviews the relevant
aspects of pre-Gricean speech-act theory (Chapter 2), Gricean theory
(Chapter 3), and relevance theory (Chapter 4)."
"Special attention is given the tools developed by each one that are
relevant to the goals of the study."
"In the subsequent chapters, Infantidou applies these tools to:
i. sentence adverbials (Chapter 5)
ii. parenthetical expressions (Chapter 6), and
iii. evidential particles (Chapter 7)."
"The examples of adverbials -- e.g.,
(3) Obviously, the ball is over the line.
and parentheticals -- e.g.,
(4) The ball, I think, is over the line.
are drawn from English. The evidential particle is from Greek: "taha" (it
seems)."
"The author's analysis unveils inadequacies in the speech-act and Gricean
conceptual repertoires."
"Sometimes these inadequacies lead to lack of explanation of the properties
of evidentials, sometimes to wrong predictions about these properties. In
contrast, the analysis
quite plainly demonstrates the power and elegance of the conceptual tools
of relevance theory."
"The notions of explicature, conceptual vs. procedural meaning, and
descriptive vs. interpretative use of utterances, uniquely present in the
relevance framework, serve to
develop satisfactory answers to the questions the author had asked."
"Infantidou concludes that evidential and hearsay adverbials _are_
truth-conditional and contribute to the _explicit_ aspect of communication."
"Parenthetical expressions, on the other hand, do _not_ contribute to the
truth conditions of the utterance, but are, again, part of _explicit_
communication."
"Finally, particles _are_ truth-conditional and contribute to the
_explicit_ aspect of communication (just like hearsay and evidential
adverbials)."
"For all expressions, _pragmatic_ inference plays a major role in their
interpretation (e.g., the strength of an assertion with the parenthetical
"I think" depends on who the speaker is.)"
"The monograph, an outgrowth of the author's dissertation work, is directed
to a professional audience and would be of special interest to those
working on evidentiality and the semantics-pragmatics interface."
"It reviews exhaustively the relevant theoretical issues and meticulously
assesses the linguistic materials."
"Overall, evidentiality researchers may have to make a larger stretch than
semanticists and pragmatists in reading the book."
"Some of the author's choices, though, might puzzle any reader."
"For example, she dedicates three chapters on the three theoretical
frameworks and then analyzes the linguistic material within each framework.
Predictably, this has lead to some cumbersomeness in the presentation."
"Another example is in the discussion of adverbials where she uses
"evidential" as a class and a superclass label: Infantidou writes about
"attitudinal", "illocutionary", "evidential", and "hearsay" adverbials. But
all of them seem to be "evidential" according to the author's definition!"
"I want to make two further remarks: one on the scope of the _definition_
of "evidentials" and the other one on the scope of the research
conclusions. Both require the author's clarification."
"The book starts by _defining_ its research domain, "evidentials", rather
broadly. Infantidou's analysis, though, suggests that evidential
constructions *differ* (at least in their contribution to the
truth-conditional meaning of utterances). Given this difference, one might
question the initial decision to treat evidentiality broadly. Infantidou
however does not examine her initial assumptions in the light of this
finding."
"Note that other researchers suggest narrowing the definition of the term
and _segregating_ the meanings and forms Infantidou puts under the same
umbrella. For example, S. Delancey argues that the speaker's confirmation
of the truth of the statement is a category separate from the marking of
information source and he calls the former "mirativity."(v. 'Mirativity:
the grammatical marking of unexpected information' Linguistic Typology 1.
and 'The mirative and evidentiality' Journal of Pragmatics 3).
"With regard to the second issue -- the scope of the research conclusions
-- the monograph does not meet the expectation set up by the definition of
evidentiality that the topics of pragmatic inference, truth-conditionality,
and communicative explicitness would be discussed relative to the broad
base of facts about the various evidential meanings and constructions in
the world languages. How revealing is the analysis of English adverbials
and parentheticals, and the Greek particle "taha" vis-a-vis the properties
of evidentials in other languages? Should we expect that analogous
evidential constructions in other languages share the semantic/pragmatic
characteristics of the studied constructions? Infantidou's answer is not
clear. A clear position, even without evidence, would have helped frame the
discourse between the present work and the researchers working on
evidentiality in other languages."
==
J L Speranza, Esq
Country Town
St Michael's Hall Suite 5/8
Calle 58, No 611 Calle Arenales 2021
La Plata CP 1900 Recoleta CP 1124
Tel 00541148241050 Tel 00542214257817
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
Telefax 00542214259205
http://www.netverk.com.ar/~jls/
jls@netverk.com.ar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 02:32:59 GMT