Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T01:14:01.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2016

SÜMEYRA TOSUN  and
JYOTSNA VAID
SÜMEYRA TOSUN*
Affiliation:
Süleyman Şah University
JYOTSNA VAID
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Sümeyra Tosun, Department of Psychology, Süleyman Şah University, Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail: stosun@ssu.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 1337 - 1367
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp. 1–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. 15–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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. 123–130). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
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. 13–28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
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. 159–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
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. 273–312). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Berlin, L. N. (2011a). I think, therefore. . .: Commitment in political testimony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 372–383.Google Scholar
Berlin, L. N. (2011b). Redundancy and markers of belief in the discourse of political hearings. Language Sciences, 33, 268–279.Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W. (2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118, 245–260.Google Scholar
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, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 91–105). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
de Haan, F. (2001). The place of inference within the evidential system. International Journal of American Linguistics, 67, 193–219.Google Scholar
Drummey, A. B., & Newcombe, N. S. (2002). Developmental changes in source memory. Developmental Science, 5, 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faller, M. T. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fitneva, S. A. (2001). Epistemic marking and reliability judgments: Evidence from Bulgarian. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitneva, S. A. (2008). The role of evidentiality in Bulgarian children's reliability judgments. Journal of Child Language, 35, 845–868.Google Scholar
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. 49–61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. (2001). Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11, 167–192.Google Scholar
Frank, L. K. (1948). Projective methods. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99–156.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (2013). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ginsborne, N., & Holmes, J. (2007). A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics, 11, 1–29.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (2012). Evidentiality in social interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 3, 169–180.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izvorski, R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Lawson, A. & Cho, E. (Eds.), Seventh Conference of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–18). Hamilton, NY: Cornell University CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. (2003). Evidentiality in Turkic. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp. 273–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 359–367.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matlock, T. (2012). Framing political messages with grammar and metaphor. American Scientist, 100, 478–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (1986). Evidential diachrony in Northern Iroquoian. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 89–112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Mortensen, J. (2006). Epistemic and evidential sentence adverbials in Danish and English: A comparative study. Unpublished dictoral dissertation, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. (2013). Making knowledge visible: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies, 15, 627–645.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently. . .and why? New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
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. 227–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nuckolls, J., & Michael, L. (2012). Evidentials and evidential strategies in interactional and sociocultural context. Pragmatics and Society, 3, 181–188.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ögel, H. (2007). Developments in source monitoring and linguistic encoding of source. Unpublished master's thesis, Bogazici University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Ö., & Papafragou, A. (2005). The acquisition of evidentiality in Turkish. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 1–14.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.Google Scholar
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. 185–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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, 121–134.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. (2014). Discourse and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. 249–278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitt, R. J. (2011). (Inter)subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 347–360.Google Scholar
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 51–97.Google Scholar