Source vs. Stance: On the Relationship between Evidential and Modal Expressions

Q1 Arts and Humanities Dialogue and Discourse Pub Date : 2018-08-10 DOI:10.5087/dad.2018.105
Sumeyra Tosun, Jyotsna Vaid
{"title":"Source vs. Stance: On the Relationship between Evidential and Modal Expressions","authors":"Sumeyra Tosun, Jyotsna Vaid","doi":"10.5087/dad.2018.105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Languages vary in how they encode and interpret attested information. The present research examined how users of Turkish and English construe utterances containing evidential information, in particular, whether evidential information is interpreted strictly as conveying source information (firsthand, or non-firsthand), or whether it is also perceived as signaling reliability of particular sources. Participants read sentences in their respective language presented in various source and modal forms and were asked to judge the source of information of the proposition and their confidence in whether the asserted event actually happened. It was found that there was sufficient information from evidential and modal expressions to make both source and probability of occurrence judgments, although the groups differed somewhat in their judgment patterns. The findings are taken to suggest that, for both Turkish and English speakers, evidentiality and epistemic modality overlaps to some extent but the two do not function exactly in the same way.","PeriodicalId":37604,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue and Discourse","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue and Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2018.105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Languages vary in how they encode and interpret attested information. The present research examined how users of Turkish and English construe utterances containing evidential information, in particular, whether evidential information is interpreted strictly as conveying source information (firsthand, or non-firsthand), or whether it is also perceived as signaling reliability of particular sources. Participants read sentences in their respective language presented in various source and modal forms and were asked to judge the source of information of the proposition and their confidence in whether the asserted event actually happened. It was found that there was sufficient information from evidential and modal expressions to make both source and probability of occurrence judgments, although the groups differed somewhat in their judgment patterns. The findings are taken to suggest that, for both Turkish and English speakers, evidentiality and epistemic modality overlaps to some extent but the two do not function exactly in the same way.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
来源与立场:论证据与情态表达的关系
语言在编码和解释已证实信息的方式上各不相同。本研究考察了土耳其语和英语使用者如何解释包含证据信息的话语,特别是证据信息是否被严格解释为传达源信息(第一手或非第一手),或者是否也被视为特定来源的可靠性信号。参与者用各自的语言阅读以各种来源和情态形式呈现的句子,并被要求判断命题信息的来源,以及他们对所断言的事件是否真的发生过的信心。结果发现,尽管两组的判断模式有所不同,但证据性表达和情态表达都有足够的信息来判断发生的来源和概率。研究结果表明,对于说土耳其语和英语的人来说,证据性和认知形态在某种程度上是重叠的,但两者的功能并不完全相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dialogue and Discourse
Dialogue and Discourse Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: D&D seeks previously unpublished, high quality articles on the analysis of discourse and dialogue that contain -experimental and/or theoretical studies related to the construction, representation, and maintenance of (linguistic) context -linguistic analysis of phenomena characteristic of discourse and/or dialogue (including, but not limited to: reference and anaphora, presupposition and accommodation, topicality and salience, implicature, ---discourse structure and rhetorical relations, discourse markers and particles, the semantics and -pragmatics of dialogue acts, questions, imperatives, non-sentential utterances, intonation, and meta--communicative phenomena such as repair and grounding) -experimental and/or theoretical studies of agents'' information states and their dynamics in conversational interaction -new analytical frameworks that advance theoretical studies of discourse and dialogue -research on systems performing coreference resolution, discourse structure parsing, event and temporal -structure, and reference resolution in multimodal communication -experimental and/or theoretical results yielding new insight into non-linguistic interaction in -communication -work on natural language understanding (including spoken language understanding), dialogue management, -reasoning, and natural language generation (including text-to-speech) in dialogue systems -work related to the design and engineering of dialogue systems (including, but not limited to: -evaluation, usability design and testing, rapid application deployment, embodied agents, affect detection, -mixed-initiative, adaptation, and user modeling). -extremely well-written surveys of existing work. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers on discourse and dialogue and its associated fields, including computer scientists, linguists, psychologists, philosophers, roboticists, sociologists.
期刊最新文献
The Conversational Discourse Unit: Identification and Its Role in Conversational Turn-taking Management Exploring the Sensitivity to Alternative Signals of Coherence Relations Scoring Coreference Chains with Split-Antecedent Anaphors Form and Function of Connectives in Chinese Conversational Speech Bullshit, Pragmatic Deception, and Natural Language Processing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1