VOOZH about

URL: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/evoke.2862397/

⇱ evoke | WordReference Forums

Menu
Install the app
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

evoke

HSS

Senior Member
Standard Japanese, Sendaian Japanese
evoke

Could this word possibly mean just 'to register something in your mind (for the first time)' and not 'to summon up what has registered in your memory'? I just couldn't make sense out of this explanation below if it only meant the latter.

(1) a. In her talk, Baldwin introduced the notion that syntactic structure is derivable from pragmatic principles.

A Heim-style approach to definiteness, where use of a definite noun phrase is felicitous just in case its referent has been previously evoked (...), provides neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for the felicitous use of the definite article.

For instance, in the example given above in (1a), the notion that syntactic structure is derivable from pragmatic principles is felicitous even when the claim in question represents brand-new information (...). Crucially, however, it also represents information that is uniquely identifiable, in that there is exactly one notion that is denoted by the noun phrase. Thus, the noun phrase itself uniquely specifies the claim in question.
(Uniqueness, Familiarity, and the Definite Article in English by Betty Birner and Gregory Ward)
Last edited:
The etymology is helpful in establishing the use of evoke: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=evoke&searchmode=none

"evoke (v.) 1620s, from French évoquer or directly from Latin evocare "call out, rouse, summon" (see evocation). Often more or less with a sense of "calling spirits," or being called by them."

From this, we see that the thing has to be already in (known or believed) existence before it can be evoked.
Hi, Paul. How are you?

Thanks ... hmmm ... so it should be in memory before being called up.

A Heim-style approach to definiteness, where use of a definite noun phrase is felicitous just in case its referent has been previously evoked (...), provides neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for the felicitous use of the definite article.
Therefore, it should go in your memory lobe up in your head and be summoned up before you can refer to it with 'the.' You can't just hear something totally new and unintelligible, and later refer to it with 'the,' according to this explanation, because you don't 'evoke' it previously then. New information just enters your brain; it's not that you are remembering it. If 'evoke' included newly registering a thing, my problem would be figured out.
In the example you give[1], you may wish to read "evoked" as "mentioned/introduced/called upon/raised". This use of "evoke" is rare and arcane: things that are evoked are nowadays abstract[2], but here, the author is using "evoke" for a (previously mentioned) word


[1] whose meaning is all but impenetrable.
[2] "The salty smell evoked memories of a holiday by the sea." 👁 Tick :tick:
"The salty smell evoked a holiday by the sea." <- I would say that, currently, that is incorrect (or obscurely formal) use.
Last edited:
In the example you give[1], you may wish to read "evoked" as "mentioned/introduced/called upon/raised". This use of "evoke" is rare and arcane: things that are evoked are nowadays abstract[2], but here, the author is using "evoke" for a (previously mentioned) word


[1] whose meaning is all but impenetrable.
[2] "The salty smell evoked memories of a holiday by the sea." 👁 Tick :tick:
 "The salty smell evoked a holiday by the sea." <- I would say that, currently, that is incorrect (or obscurely formal) use.

Just to verify that I understand you, Paul, you are referring to example [2], and the following sentence your think is incorrectly constructed because it is referring to something that has not been registered in the speaker's mind. Correct?

What is the antecedent of 'whose' in [1], Paul? I'm a bit confused.
Edit: Maybe I should have worded my question this way. I edited my first post:

Could this word possibly mean just 'to register in your mind (for the first time)' and not 'to summon up what has registered and been deep in your memory'? I just couldn't make sense out of this explanation below if it only meant the latter.
>>>
Could this word possibly mean just 'to register something in your mind (for the first time)' and not 'to summon up what has registered in your memory'? I just couldn't make sense out of this explanation below if it only meant the latter.
Back
Top Bottom