Patterns of evidentials use in dream narratives

Valeriia Nikolaienko
{"title":"Patterns of evidentials use in dream narratives","authors":"Valeriia Nikolaienko","doi":"10.26565/2218-2926-2023-26-06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":482994,"journal":{"name":"Cognition, communication, discourse","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition, communication, discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2023-26-06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
梦境叙述中证据使用的模式
这篇文章提出了一项关于从在线梦境期刊收集的梦境报告中使用证据的研究。首先,讨论立场范畴与证据范畴之间的关系。具体来说,我将证据性定义为标记英语语言中信息来源的语义范畴。证据性包括感知、报告证据性和推理判断。由于梦的准感性和具体的经验性,证据在呈现梦经验方面的作用是相当大的。因此,本研究挑选了证据性的核心类别,如启示性、感觉和感觉推理、报告性、非感觉推理和镜像(标记意外信息)。然后对样本进行人工处理,以计算呈现这些证据子类别的均值的相对频率。主要的发现在于,在标记梦境与真实叙事空间的地位时,具有启发性的证据所起的作用。此外,关于梦的视觉性的经典假设被大量的视觉感知证据所证实,而听觉和其他感知模式的实例在样本中要少得多。最后,梦报告中证据子类别的选择是由叙述者需要解释对梦经历的模糊回忆和更简单的推理形式的偏好所决定的。反过来,mirativity的范畴(即对意外信息的标注)作为一种前瞻性的研究途径被讨论,因为它在微妙而又有信息量的标记说话人对所传达的信息的反应或获取信息的渠道方面具有丰富的潜力。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信