The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.
|Full Title:||Evidentiality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface|
|Start Date:||06-Oct-2014 - 07-Oct-2014|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
|Meeting Description:||International Conference on Evidentiality and Modality in European Languages 2014 (EMEL'14)
Facultad de Filología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
6-8 October 2014
Bert Cornillie (KU Leuven)
Björn Wiemer (JGU Mainz)
“Evidentiality and the semantics-pragmatics interface”
The target of the workshop is to come to grips with (the relation between) the semantics and pragmatics of evidential expressions.
In line with Boye/Harder (2009), we understand evidentiality as a conceptual domain, regardless of the grammatical vs. lexical status one wants to ascribe to the given linguistic device. However, lexical and grammatical means are likewise results of conventionalization and, in this sense, are to be opposed to meanings which are only calculated/inferred 'online' on the basis of the current discourse. Yet, researchers notoriously face problems when it comes to defining the criteria of conventionalization (grammaticalization or lexicalization) and, even more so, with applying them in the analysis of concrete data.
We advocate a strict distinction between epistemic and evidential meanings from an onomasiological point of view (cf. Aikhenvald 2004; Cornillie 2009; Wiemer/Stathi 2010). In many works on evidential (or other propositional) markers researchers claim to be able to determine whether an evidential marker carries epistemic overtones or, the other way around, that an epistemic marker has acquired (or switched to) an evidential function (cf. Hennemann 2011; 2013; Wiemer/Kampf 2012, among many others). Rarely, however, are such claims accompanied by an explicit indication of how diagnostics has been performed, other than relying on one's intuitions about the language and context. Notwithstanding this problem, there seems to be convergent insight among evidentiality researchers that epistemic overtones can often be captured as (generalised) conversational implicatures (cf., for instance, Faller 2012, Wiemer/Kampf 2012, Korta/Zubeldia 2014). Apart from this notion there might be other concepts and tests that can account for an operative distinction between stably encoded and pragmatically inferred meaning components.
| This is a session of the following meeting:
International Conference on Evidentiality and Modality in European Languages 2014
|Calls and Conferences main page|