The semantics and pragmatics of English evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews

The goal of this dissertation is to examine how English speakers express their evidence in the context of police interviews. I show that speakers use discourse markers, in particular, actually, apparently and supposedly, to explain their evidence in a criminal investigation. The data for this resear...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Glougie, Jennifer Robin Sarah
Language:English
Published: University of British Columbia 2016
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/2429/59531
id ndltd-UBC-oai-circle.library.ubc.ca-2429-59531
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-UBC-oai-circle.library.ubc.ca-2429-595312018-01-05T17:29:25Z The semantics and pragmatics of English evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews Glougie, Jennifer Robin Sarah The goal of this dissertation is to examine how English speakers express their evidence in the context of police interviews. I show that speakers use discourse markers, in particular, actually, apparently and supposedly, to explain their evidence in a criminal investigation. The data for this research was collected exclusively from transcripts of police interviews of lay witnesses in the investigation into the disappearance and murder of Caylee Anthony that occurred in Orange County, Florida, between 2008 and 2011. I show that actually marks evidence strength and is felicitous where the speaker has the ‘best’ evidence for their proposition. Actually’s evidential contribution largely parallels the best possible grounds evidential -mi in Cuzco Quechua, and contrasts with that observed for English must. Apparently marks that the speaker’s evidence for the proposition is indirect and supposedly marks that the speaker has reported evidence for the proposition and that they distrust the report. In addition to what evidentials mean, this dissertation considers what speakers use evidentials to do. I show that speakers use evidentials to negotiate the common ground (cg) of discourse. While a bare assertion proposes its propositional content for inclusion in the cg, speakers use actually-assertions both to propose the propositional content for inclusion and to advocate for its inclusion by marking that the speaker has best evidence for that content. Because actually highlights the strength of the speaker’s evidence, it can be used to achieve delicate discourse actions like correcting, challenging and disagreeing. In questions, actually puts the addressee on notice that the information proposed in a bare assertion cannot be included in the cg without more information; actually-questions encourage the addressee to justify their evidence either by disclosing the source of their evidence or by expressly aligning as author and/or principal of that information. Speakers use apparently and supposedly to proffer information that may be relevant to the investigation but without proposing it for inclusion in the cg, because they are either agnostic about its reliability or know it to be untrustworthy. Arts, Faculty of Graduate 2016-10-20T15:10:47Z 2016-10-22T01:01:19 2016 2016-11 Text Thesis/Dissertation http://hdl.handle.net/2429/59531 eng Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ University of British Columbia
collection NDLTD
language English
sources NDLTD
description The goal of this dissertation is to examine how English speakers express their evidence in the context of police interviews. I show that speakers use discourse markers, in particular, actually, apparently and supposedly, to explain their evidence in a criminal investigation. The data for this research was collected exclusively from transcripts of police interviews of lay witnesses in the investigation into the disappearance and murder of Caylee Anthony that occurred in Orange County, Florida, between 2008 and 2011. I show that actually marks evidence strength and is felicitous where the speaker has the ‘best’ evidence for their proposition. Actually’s evidential contribution largely parallels the best possible grounds evidential -mi in Cuzco Quechua, and contrasts with that observed for English must. Apparently marks that the speaker’s evidence for the proposition is indirect and supposedly marks that the speaker has reported evidence for the proposition and that they distrust the report. In addition to what evidentials mean, this dissertation considers what speakers use evidentials to do. I show that speakers use evidentials to negotiate the common ground (cg) of discourse. While a bare assertion proposes its propositional content for inclusion in the cg, speakers use actually-assertions both to propose the propositional content for inclusion and to advocate for its inclusion by marking that the speaker has best evidence for that content. Because actually highlights the strength of the speaker’s evidence, it can be used to achieve delicate discourse actions like correcting, challenging and disagreeing. In questions, actually puts the addressee on notice that the information proposed in a bare assertion cannot be included in the cg without more information; actually-questions encourage the addressee to justify their evidence either by disclosing the source of their evidence or by expressly aligning as author and/or principal of that information. Speakers use apparently and supposedly to proffer information that may be relevant to the investigation but without proposing it for inclusion in the cg, because they are either agnostic about its reliability or know it to be untrustworthy. === Arts, Faculty of === Graduate
author Glougie, Jennifer Robin Sarah
spellingShingle Glougie, Jennifer Robin Sarah
The semantics and pragmatics of English evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews
author_facet Glougie, Jennifer Robin Sarah
author_sort Glougie, Jennifer Robin Sarah
title The semantics and pragmatics of English evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews
title_short The semantics and pragmatics of English evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews
title_full The semantics and pragmatics of English evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews
title_fullStr The semantics and pragmatics of English evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews
title_full_unstemmed The semantics and pragmatics of English evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews
title_sort semantics and pragmatics of english evidential expressions : the expression of evidentiality in police interviews
publisher University of British Columbia
publishDate 2016
url http://hdl.handle.net/2429/59531
work_keys_str_mv AT glougiejenniferrobinsarah thesemanticsandpragmaticsofenglishevidentialexpressionstheexpressionofevidentialityinpoliceinterviews
AT glougiejenniferrobinsarah semanticsandpragmaticsofenglishevidentialexpressionstheexpressionofevidentialityinpoliceinterviews
_version_ 1718585443351527424