Patterns of evidentials use in dream narratives
The article presents a study on evidentials use in dream reports collected from online dream journals. First, I discuss the relation between the categories of stance and evidentiality. Specifically, I define evidentiality for the needs of this research as a semantic category that labels the source of information in the English language. Evidentiality encompasses perception, reportative evidentiality, and inferential judgment. The role of evidentials in rendering the dream experience is considerable due to the quasi-perceptual and specific experientiality of dreaming. Therefore, the core categories of evidentiality were singled out for this study, such as revelative, sensory and sensory-inferential, reportative, non-sensory inferential and mirative (marking unexpected information). The sample was then manually processed to count the relative frequencies of the means rendering these subcategories of evidentiality. The main findings reside in the role of revelative evidentials in marking the status of dream vs. real narrative spaces. Additionally, the classic assumption about the visuality of dreams was confirmed by the high number of visual perceptual evidentials, while audial and other perceptual mode instances are much fewer in the sample. Finally, the choice of evidential subcategories in dream reports is conditioned by the narrators’ need to account for vague recollection of dreaming experience with the preference for simpler inferential forms. In turn, the category of mirativity (i.e. labeling of unexpected information) is discussed as a prospective research avenue due to its rich potential in subtle yet informative marking of the speaker’s reaction to the information communicated or to the channel of obtaining it.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arrese, J. I. M., Haßler, G., & Carretero, M. (2017). Introduction. Evidentiality revisited. In J. I. M. Arrese, G. Haßler, & M. Carretero (Eds.), Evidentiality Revisited (pp. 1-9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271.01mar
Baynham, M. (2011). Stance, positioning, and alignment in narratives of professional experience. Language in Society, 40(1), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404510000898
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11(1), 1-34.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text-interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 93-124.
Blechner, M. (2001). The dream frontier. London: The Analytic Press.
Boye, K. (2012). Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study: Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 267-272). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Cornillie, B., Arrese, J. I. M., & Wiemer, B. (2015). Evidentiality and the semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 29(1), 1-18.
De Haan, F. (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18(1), 83-101.
De Haan, F. (2001). The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte, 9,
De Haan, F. (2012). Evidentiality and mirativity. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp. 1020-1046). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Du Bois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Fludernik, M. (2002). Towards a ‘natural’ narratology. London: Routledge.
Fortescue, M. (2017). The abstraction engine: Extracting patterns in language, mind and brain. (Advances in Consciousness Research, Vol. 94). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Freud, S. (1996). The interpretation of dreams (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York, NY: Gramercy Books (Original work published 1900).
Georgakopoulou, A. (2013). Small stories research and social media practices: Narrative stancetaking and circulation in a Greek news story. Sociolinguistica, 27(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1515/soci.2013.27.1.19
Hobson, J. A. (1988). Dreaming. In J. A. Hobson (Ed.), States of brain and mind (pp. 31-33). Boston, MA: Birkhäuser.
Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 29-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kracke, W. H. (2009). ‘Dream as deceit, dream as truth: The grammar of telling dreams’, Anthropological Linguistics, 51, 61-77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40730832
Kratschmer, A., & Heijnen, A. (2010). Revelative evidentiality in European languages: Linguistic marking and its anthropological background. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages (pp. 331-368). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Langacker, R. W. (2017). Evidentiality in cognitive grammar. In J. I. M. Arrese et al. (Eds.), Evidentiality revisited (pp. 13-55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lau, M. L., & Rooryck, J. (2017). Aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity. Lingua, 186, 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.11.009
Morozova, O.I. (2011). Stance: pozitsiya sub’yekta dyskursyvnoyi diyalnosti [Stance: position of the discourse activity subject]. Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho linhvistychnoho universytetu. Seriya filologiya, 14(1), 87-93.(in Ukrainian)
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Peterson, T. (2017). Problematizing mirativity. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 312-342. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.02pet
Rooryck, J. E. C. V. (2001a). State–of–the–article: Evidentiality, Part I. Glot International, 5(4), 3-11. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2859546/view
Rooryck, J. E. C. V. (2001b). State–of–the–article: Evidentiality, Part II. Glot International, 5(5), 161-168. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2859608/view
Scioli, E. (2015). Dream, fantasy, and visual art in Roman elegy. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Ushchyna, V. (2018). Manipulative use of risk as a stance in political communication. Discourse & Society, 29(2), 198-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517734424
Ushchyna, V. (2020). From stance to identity: Stancetaking in contemporary English risk discourse. Cognition, communication, discourse, 20, 73-91. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2020-20-05
Ushchyna, V. A. (2016). Pozytsiyuvannya subyekta v suchasnomu anhlomovnomu dyskursi ryzyku. [Stancetaking in contemporary English risk discourse]. Unpublished doctor of sciences dissertation, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine (in Ukrainian).
Willett, T. (1988). A Cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 51-97. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
Whitt, R. J. (2009). Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs. Lingua, 119(7), 1083-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001
Copyright (c) 2023 Valeriia Nikolaienko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).