‘Tell Us Only What You Know’: Evidentiality in the Discourse of Participants in Spanish Trials
Metadata
Show full item recordcomunitat-uji-handle:10234/9
comunitat-uji-handle2:10234/8016
comunitat-uji-handle3:10234/8623
comunitat-uji-handle4:
INVESTIGACIONThis resource is restricted
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00070-z |
Metadata
Title
‘Tell Us Only What You Know’: Evidentiality in the Discourse of Participants in Spanish TrialsDate
2019-12-03Publisher
SpringerISSN
2509-9507; 2509-9515Bibliographic citation
Villalba Ibáñez, C., Kotwica, D. ‘Tell Us Only What You Know’: Evidentiality in the Discourse of Participants in Spanish Trials. Corpus Pragmatics 4, 133–153 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00070-zType
info:eu-repo/semantics/articlePublisher version
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41701-019-00070-zVersion
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionSubject
Abstract
The aim of this proposal is to explore the use of evidentiality in Spanish trials and its relationship with the genre’s conventions and the roles of the participants in these discursive events. To do that, we base our ... [+]
The aim of this proposal is to explore the use of evidentiality in Spanish trials and its relationship with the genre’s conventions and the roles of the participants in these discursive events. To do that, we base our study on a quantitative–qualitative analysis of a transcribed corpus of oral Spanish trials. Evidentiality is a semantic-functional category that includes linguistic devices that mark the source of information behind the speaker’s statements. The explicit marking of the source is not obligatory in Spanish; however, in specific genres (legal, parliamentary, and academic), it becomes a powerful argumentative tool for negotiating the validity of the ideas. We analysed how different participants in the trials made use of evidential expressions. It can be observed that speakers with expert knowledge about the genre conventions (jurists) employed evidentiality differently from the way in which lay participants did. Some differences can be observed at the level of the types of evidentiality. For example, generic inferences and the reporting of laws and scripts are typical of the jurists’ discourse, while lay participants, particularly the witnesses, referred more often to information based on observation. Furthermore, our analysis suggested that jurists were more likely to exploit evidential constructions for argumentative or strategic purposes. For example, logical reasoning based on presumably known or shared information can be used to downgrade the speaker’s commitment or to mitigate and attenuate disagreement. [-]
Is part of
Corpus Pragmatics, 2020, vol. 4, no 1Rights
© Springer Nature
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
This item appears in the folowing collection(s)
- FIL_Articles [326]