2009Functions of LanguageRequires access

Evidentiality

Kasper Boye, Peter Harder

Open publisher page 198 citations

Abstract

This article takes up two closely connected theoretical unclarities: the questions of what a linguistic category is, and what it means for linguistic elements to have grammatical rather than lexical status. The two issues are discussed with reference to the case of evidentiality. The point of departure is the problem of how to define a category: Definitions of categories like evidentiality tend to mix up the question of what unifies the category with distinctions between pragmatic and semantic meaning, between lexical and grammatical coding, and between main predication and ancillary modification. In this article, we try to demonstrate the drawbacks of a conception of evidentiality as a strictly semantic, grammatical or modification phenomenon. We argue that evidentiality should be understood basically as a functional-conceptual substance domain. Against this background, we reconsider the distinction between grammatical and lexical status. We present a functional account of grammaticalization according to which grammatical status arises when a meaning is coded as being secondary information. By separating the definition of functional-conceptual substance domains from the distinction between grammatical and lexical status, we try to show how a function-based approach can make the characteristics of categories and of grammatical status cohere without getting mixed up.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article takes up two closely connected theoretical unclarities: the questions of what a linguistic category is, and what it means for linguistic elements to have grammatical rather than lexical status. The two issues are discussed with reference to the case of evidentiality. The point of departure is the problem of how to define a category: Definitions of categories like evidentiality tend to mix up the question of what unifies the category with distinctions between pragmatic and semantic meaning, between lexical and grammatical coding, and between main predication and ancillary modification. In this article, we try to demonstrate the drawbacks of a conception of evidentiality as a strictly semantic, grammatical or modification phenomenon. We argue that evidentiality should be understood basically as a functional-conceptual substance domain. Against this background, we reconsider the distinction between grammatical and lexical status. We present a functional account of grammaticalization according to which grammatical status arises when a meaning is coded as being secondary information. By separating the definition of functional-conceptual substance domains from the distinction between grammatical and lexical status, we try to show how a function-based approach can make the characteristics of categories and of grammatical status cohere without getting mixed up.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 198 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article takes up two closely connected theoretical unclarities: the questions of what a linguistic category is, and what it means for linguistic elements to have grammatical rather than lexical status. The two issues are discussed with reference to the case of evidentiality. The point of departure is the problem of how to define a category: Definitions of categories like evidentiality tend to mix up the question of what unifies the category with distinctions between pragmatic and semantic meaning, between lexical and grammatical coding, and between main predication and ancillary modification. In this article, we try to demonstrate the drawbacks of a conception of evidentiality as a strictly semantic, grammatical or modification phenomenon. We argue that evidentiality should be understood basically as a functional-conceptual substance domain. Against this background, we reconsider the distinction between grammatical and lexical status. We present a functional account of grammaticalization according to which grammatical status arises when a meaning is coded as being secondary information. By separating the definition of functional-conceptual substance domains from the distinction between grammatical and lexical status, we try to show how a function-based approach can make the characteristics of categories and of grammatical status cohere without getting mixed up.

Key concepts: Evidentiality, Linguistics, Grammaticalization, Grammatical category, Meaning (existential), Lexical item, Phenomenon, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Evidentiality — Research Paper | ScholarLens