Sense Activation Triggering in English Epistentials: Attention Distribution, Contextual Modulation of Meaning, and Categorization Issues

in Cognitive Semantics
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Drawing on Talmy’s forthcoming The Attention System of Language and elaborating on a series of previous studies, this paper addresses the interrelation of attention distribution, contextual modulation of meaning, and categorization issues in the area of evidentiality and epistemic modality Adopting a corpus-based approach, it will investigate how the default salience levels of evidential and epistemic semantic components in so-called epistentials (linguistic items that syncretistically represent evidential and epistemic components) can be raised, lowered, or even inhibited under the impact of immediately adjacent items that themselves associate evidential or epistemic semantic components (in combinations such as obviously certain or certainly obvious, and of ‘epistential’ adverbs with ‘epistential’ must). All the emerging attentional effects turn out to be asymmetric: the first item in the combination is seen to strengthen the less salient semantic component in the target morpheme, sometimes leading to a re-categorization of the target.

Sense Activation Triggering in English Epistentials: Attention Distribution, Contextual Modulation of Meaning, and Categorization Issues

in Cognitive Semantics

Sections

References

AikhenvaldAlexandra Y. 2003. Evidentiality in typological perspective. In AikhenvaldAlexandra Y. and DixonR.M. W. (eds.) Studies in evidentiality 1–31. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

AikhenvaldAlexandra Y. and DixonR. M. W.. 2014. The Grammar of Knowledge: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BoyeKasper (2012). Epistemic meaning: A cross-linguistic and cognitive-functional study. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.

ColGilles andPoibeau Thierry. 2014. An instruction-based analysis of over. Language and Cognition 6:370407.

CornillieBert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: on the close relationship of two different categories. Functions of Language16:3244.

CruseD. Allan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De HaanFerdinand. 2009. On the status of epistemic must. In TsangalidisAnastasios and FacchinettiRoberta (eds.) Studies in English modality. In honour of Frank Palmer261284. Frankfurt am Main and Bern: Peter Lang.

EvansVyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean. Lexical Concepts Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

FallerMartina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph. D. Dissertation Stanford University.

FloydRick. 1999. The structure of evidential categories in Wanka Quechua. A Publication of the Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.

ForakerStephani and MurphyGregory L.. 2012. Polysemy in sentence comprehension: Effects of meaning dominance. Journal of Memory and Language 67:407425.

FrissonSteven. 2009. Semantic under specification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 3:111127.

Frisson Steven and Matthew J. Traxler. 2013. The semantic interpretation of sentences. In Roger P. G. Van Gompel (ed.) Sentence processing 160–188. London: Psychology Press.

FurmaniakGrégory. 2011. On the emergence of the epistemic meaning of must. SKY. Journal of Linguistics 24:4173.

GeeraertsDirk. 1993. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemies vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4:223272.

GeeraertsDirk. 2000. Salience phenomena in the lexicon: a typology. In AlbertazziLiliana (ed.) Meaning and cognition79101. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

GeeraertsDirk. 2010a. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GeeraertsDirk. 2010b. Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In TabakowskaElżbieta et al. (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back71102. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.

GriesStefan Th. to appear. Polysemy. In DąbrowskaEwa and DivjakDagmar S. (eds.) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.

HallidayM.A.K. 1970. Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English. Foundations of Language 6:322361.

HoyeLeo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman.

HuitinkJaneke. 2012. Modal concord: a case study in Dutch. Journal of Semantics 29:403437.

KehayovPetar. 2009. Interactions between grammatical evidentials and lexical markers of epistemicity and evidentiality: a case-study of Bulgarian and Estonian. In PlungianVladimir and WiemerBjörn (eds.) Lexikalische Evidenzialitäts-Marker in slavischen Sprachen165201. München and Wien: Otto Sagner.

KortaKepa and ZubeldiaLarraitz. 2014. The contribution of evidentials to utterance content. Evidence from the Basque reportative particle omen. Language 90. 2:389423.

LampertGünther. 2009a. ‘I know not seems’: Markers of Fictivity and Factivity in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In ReitzBernhard (ed.) ‘My age is a lusty winter’: Essays in honour of Peter Erlebach and Thomas Michael Stein249259. Trier: WVT Verlag.

LampertGünther. 2011. Seem: Evidential, epistemic, or what else?International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics 2: 124.

LampertGünther. 2013. (Dis-)Embodiment, Palpability, and Cognitive State. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics 4: 163187.

LampertGünther and LampertMartina. 2000. The conceptual structure(s) of modality: essences and ideologies. A study in linguistic (meta-)categorization. Frankfurt am Main and Bern: Peter Lang.

LampertGünther and LampertMartina. 2010. Where does evidentiality reside? Notes on the (alleged) limiting cases: seem and be like. Zeitschrift für SprachwissenschaftTypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 63: 308321.

LampertMartina. 1992. Die Parenthetische Konstruktion als textuelle Strategie: Zur kognitiven und kommunikativen Basis einer grammatischen Kategorie. München and Wien: Otto Sagner.

LampertMartina. 2009. Attention and recombinance. A cognitive-semantic investigation into morphological compositionality. Frankfurt am Main and Bern: Peter Lang.

LampertMartina. 2011. Attentional profiles of parenthetical constructions: Some thoughts on a cognitive-semantic analysis of written language. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics 2: 86106.

LampertMartina and LampertGünther. 2013. and the ball seemed to keep rollingLinking up cognitive systems: Force dynamics and attention. Frankfurt am Main and Bern: Peter Lang.

LyonsJohn. 1977. Semantics. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MurphyGregory L. 2011. How words mean: Lexical Concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction (review). Language: 303–396.

MushinIlana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance. Narrative retelling. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Nuyts2001. Epistemic modality language and conceptualization. A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Nuyts Jan. 2004. Over de (beperkte) combineerbaarheid van deontische epistemische en evidentiële uitdrukkingen in het Nederlands. Wilrijk: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 108.

Nuyts Jan. 2005. The modal confusion: on terminology and concepts behind it. In KlingeAlex and Høeg MüllerHenrik (eds.) Modality. Studies in form and function538. London: Equinox.

Nuyts 2009. The ‘one-commitment-per-clause’ principle and the cognitive status of qualificational categories. Linguistics: 141171.

NuytsJan. 2014. Analyses of the modal meanings. The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood (Forthcoming). Online publication.

SearleJohn R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simon-VandenbergenAnne-Marie and AijmerKarin. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty. A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.

SquartiniMario. 2014. Interactions between modality and other semantic categories. The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood (Forthcoming). Online publication.

SweetserEve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TalmyLeonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

TalmyLeonard. 2006. A windowing onto conceptual structure and language. Part 2: Language and cognition: Past and future. Leonard Talmy interviewed by Iraide Ibarretxe Antuñano. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4: 253268.

TalmyLeonard. 2007. Recombinance in the evolution of language. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: The Panels2660. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

TalmyLeonard. 2014. Relating Language to Other Cognitive Systems—An Abridged Account. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy 10.1. Downloadable at www.cosmosandhistory.org.

TalmyLeonard forthcoming. The attention system of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

TaylorJohn R. 2012. The Mental Corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WiemerBjörn. 2014. Evidenzialität. In Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Online (WSK). Downloadable at http://www.degruyter.com/view/WSK/wsk_id2be6489a-713b-4aa5-917b-3277ef1dd8d7?rskey=vMNmj6&result=1&dbq_0=Evidenzialität&dbf_0=wsk-fulltext&dbt_0=fulltext&o_0=AND.

WiemerBjörn and KampfVeronika. 2012. On conditions instantiating tip effects of epistemic and evidential meanings in Bulgarian. Slovene. Online International Journal of Slavic Studies: 538.

WiemerBjörn and SockaAnna in press. How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs.

2

 Cf. Floyd (1999) Mushin (2001) and Disney (2012); for more detailed information on relevant conceptualizations of evidentiality cf. G. Lampert and M. Lampert (2010); G. Lampert (2011 2013); M. Lampert and G. Lampert (2013).

7

Likewise Hoye (1997) Kehayov (2009) and Boye (2012) do not read the combinations they investigate in terms of epistentials.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 27 27 10
Full Text Views 72 72 52
PDF Downloads 14 14 8
EPUB Downloads 1 1 0