带有虚词证据的问句翻转

IF 0.6 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Folia Linguistica Pub Date : 2024-02-10 DOI:10.1515/flin-2023-2050
Martina Faller
{"title":"带有虚词证据的问句翻转","authors":"Martina Faller","doi":"10.1515/flin-2023-2050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops an account of the Cuzco Quechua reportative evidential. It is proposed that it contributes a preparatory condition in all its uses which states that the evidence holder has reportative evidence that supports the speaker raising the issue denoted by the sentence it occurs in. In declarative sentences, this results in the speech act of presenting the proposition expressed without expressing the speaker’s belief that it is true. In interrogatives, there are two readings. On the interrogative flip reading, the evidence holder is the addressee and the resulting speech act is a question supported by the speaker’s assumption that the addressee has reportative evidence for one of the answers. On the second reading, the evidence holder is the speaker, and the resulting speech act is one of asking the question on behalf of someone else. The account differs from previous accounts of the flipped reading of evidentials in questions which make them part of the answers. It is argued that analyzing the reportative’s contribution as a preparatory condition better captures the insight that the speaker chooses the evidential based on what they know about the addressee’s likely type of evidence at the time of speaking. The paper moreover argues that preparatory conditions cannot be analyzed as presuppositions in the common ground and should instead be understood as propositions the speaker takes for granted, but which may be new information to the addressee.","PeriodicalId":45269,"journal":{"name":"Folia Linguistica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The interrogative flip with illocutionary evidentials\",\"authors\":\"Martina Faller\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/flin-2023-2050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper develops an account of the Cuzco Quechua reportative evidential. It is proposed that it contributes a preparatory condition in all its uses which states that the evidence holder has reportative evidence that supports the speaker raising the issue denoted by the sentence it occurs in. In declarative sentences, this results in the speech act of presenting the proposition expressed without expressing the speaker’s belief that it is true. In interrogatives, there are two readings. On the interrogative flip reading, the evidence holder is the addressee and the resulting speech act is a question supported by the speaker’s assumption that the addressee has reportative evidence for one of the answers. On the second reading, the evidence holder is the speaker, and the resulting speech act is one of asking the question on behalf of someone else. The account differs from previous accounts of the flipped reading of evidentials in questions which make them part of the answers. It is argued that analyzing the reportative’s contribution as a preparatory condition better captures the insight that the speaker chooses the evidential based on what they know about the addressee’s likely type of evidence at the time of speaking. The paper moreover argues that preparatory conditions cannot be analyzed as presuppositions in the common ground and should instead be understood as propositions the speaker takes for granted, but which may be new information to the addressee.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Folia Linguistica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Folia Linguistica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2023-2050\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia Linguistica","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2023-2050","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对库斯科盖丘亚语的报告性证据进行了阐述。本文提出,该词在所有使用中都有一个预备条件,即证据持有者有报告性证据支持说话者提出该词所在句子所表示的问题。在陈述句中,这导致的言语行为是提出所表达的命题,而不表示说话人相信该命题是真的。在疑问句中,有两种读法。在问句的翻转读法中,证据持有者是被问者,由此产生的言语行为是一个问题,说话人假定被问者对其中一个答案有报告证据。在第二种解读中,证据持有者是说话人,由此产生的言语行为是代表他人提出问题。这种说法有别于以往将问题中的证据作为答案的一部分进行翻转阅读的说法。本文认为,将报告人的贡献作为准备条件进行分析,能更好地捕捉到说话人根据他们在说话时对收信人可能的证据类型的了解来选择证据的洞察力。此外,本文还认为,准备条件不能被分析为共同基础中的预设,而应被理解为说话者认为理所当然的命题,但这些命题对收信人来说可能是新信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The interrogative flip with illocutionary evidentials
This paper develops an account of the Cuzco Quechua reportative evidential. It is proposed that it contributes a preparatory condition in all its uses which states that the evidence holder has reportative evidence that supports the speaker raising the issue denoted by the sentence it occurs in. In declarative sentences, this results in the speech act of presenting the proposition expressed without expressing the speaker’s belief that it is true. In interrogatives, there are two readings. On the interrogative flip reading, the evidence holder is the addressee and the resulting speech act is a question supported by the speaker’s assumption that the addressee has reportative evidence for one of the answers. On the second reading, the evidence holder is the speaker, and the resulting speech act is one of asking the question on behalf of someone else. The account differs from previous accounts of the flipped reading of evidentials in questions which make them part of the answers. It is argued that analyzing the reportative’s contribution as a preparatory condition better captures the insight that the speaker chooses the evidential based on what they know about the addressee’s likely type of evidence at the time of speaking. The paper moreover argues that preparatory conditions cannot be analyzed as presuppositions in the common ground and should instead be understood as propositions the speaker takes for granted, but which may be new information to the addressee.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Folia Linguistica
Folia Linguistica Multiple-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Folia Linguistica covers all non-historical areas in the traditional disciplines of general linguistics (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics), and also sociological, discoursal, computational and psychological aspects of language and linguistic theory. Other areas of central concern are grammaticalization and language typology. The journal consists of scientific articles presenting results of original research, review articles, overviews of research in specific areas, book reviews, and a miscellanea section carrying reports and discussion notes. In addition, proposals from prospective guest editors for occasional special issues on selected current topics are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of micro- and macro- structural narrative features between Turkish-Kurdish bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals Voice, impersonal construction, and zero lexeme: formalization of crucial notions Detecting angloversal tendencies in the outer circle: a pilot study on a Maltese English speaker Toponymic unity of the Carpathian region John W. Schwieter and Julia Festman, The cognitive neuroscience of bilingualism
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1