{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025373134328358207, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005970149253731343, 'mean_word_length': 5.841836734693878, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evidentiality in discourse

The investigation of the theoretical concept of evidentiality has originated from the analysis of languages like Kwakiutl (Boas [1911] 2002), where evidentiality is coded in the system of grammar. In recent years, however, the focus has shifted more and more to its pragmatic functions: by marking the source of information and thus the commitment of, or attitude toward, the information, the speaker (or writer) secures a communicative act to the hearer (or reader), or promotes or shares the understanding of a state of affairs. In these pragmatic functions, evidentiality may intersect with epistemic modality and with the marking of tense and aspect. The present issue of Evidentiality in discourse provides functional analyses of the form and function of evidentiality as grammaticalized and optional marking across different discourse domains (political discourse, media discourse and non-institutional conversation) and different discourse genres (research articles, media reports, Prime Minister’s Questions, election campaigns and mundane everyday talk). The following section examines the theory and practice of evidentiality, discussing the grammar and pragmatics of evidentiality. The third section examines evidentiality as a discursive construct and the fourth section introduces the contributions.