1887
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9336
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9344

Abstract

Abstract

By combining the idea of property concepts and the kernel-based theory of subjectivity, this paper proposes an analysis of the otherwise mysterious behavior of the Mandarin “you” predicates, where subjectivity/evidentiality and possessive/attributive readings come and go in an intricate way. The paper presents a phenomenon of Mandarin called possessive Property Concept predicates, involving a possessive morpheme “have” and a bare NP. Studying the subjectivity puzzle in Chinese advances our understanding of information source and information force in the following way. The Chinese fact, as a separate element, is part of the bigger picture about subjectivity. To explain how the subjectivity predicate as a natural class connects with evidentiality, this paper provides an approach to probe subjectivity through examining the information source change, which is derived from removing or adding evidential morpheme(s).

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21007.con
2022-01-27
2022-05-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/alal.21007.con.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21007.con&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anand, P.
    (2006) De de se. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anand, P. , and N. Korotkova
    (2017) Adjudicating theories of taste: an argument from ‘non main-predicate’ position. UC Santa Cruz and University of Tubingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2018) Acquaintance content and obviation. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22 . 10.21248/zaspil.60.2018.454
    https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.60.2018.454 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anand, P. , and A. Nevins
    (2004) Shifty operators in changing contexts. R. B. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 14, R. Young , Ed., 20–37. 10.3765/salt.v14i0.2913
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v14i0.2913 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baccianella, S. , A. Esuli , and F. Sebastiani
    (2010) Sentiwordnet 3.0: An enhanced lexical re-source for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10)(LREC).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bhatt, R. , and R. Pancheva
    (1998) Genericity, implicit arguments, and control. Proceedings of Student Conference in Linguistics 7.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Boye, K. , and P. Harder
    (2009) Evidentiality. linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language, 16, 9–43. 10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy [Google Scholar]
  9. Bylinina, L.
    (2014) The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2017) Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Journal of Semantics, 34, 291–331.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cappelen, H. , and J. Hawthorne
    (2009) Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, K. , and H. Tao
    (2014) The rise of a high transitivity marker ‘dao’ in contemporary chinese: Co-evolvement of language and society. Chinese Language and discourse, 5 (1), 25–52. 10.1075/cld.5.1.02che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.5.1.02che [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheng, L. L.-S. , and R. Sybesma
    (1999) Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of np. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (4). 10.1162/002438999554192
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554192 [Google Scholar]
  14. de Haan, F.
    (2013) Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer , and M. Haspelmath , Eds., Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, URLhttps://wals.info/chapter/77
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (1982) ‘Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?’ and other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Egan, A.
    (2010) Disputing about taste, chap. Disagreement, 247–286. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226078.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226078.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  17. Egan, A. , J. Hawthorne , and B. Weatherson
    (2005) Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning and truth. Epistemic modals in context, G. Preyer , and G. Peter , Eds., Oxford University Press, 131–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Faller, M. T.
    (2002) semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in cuzco quechua. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fang, H.
    (2016) Subjectivity and evaluation in standard setting: a study on mandarin ‘hen’. Proceedings of the West coast conference on formal linguistics 34 , A. Kaplan , A. Kaplan , M. McCarvel , and E. Rubin , Eds.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Farkas, D. F. , and K. B. Bruce
    (2010) On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics, 27 (1), 81–118. 10.1093/jos/ffp010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp010 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fernald, T.
    (2000) Predicates and temporal arguments. Oxford University Press, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fleisher, N.
    (2013) The dynamics of subjectivity. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT-23), T. Snider , Ed.. 10.3765/salt.v23i0.2679
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2679 [Google Scholar]
  23. Foolen, A. , H. de Hoop , and S. Mulder
    (2018) Evidence for Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.61
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61 [Google Scholar]
  24. Francez, I. , and A. Koontz-Garboden
    (2015) Semantic variation and the grammar of property concepts. Language, 91 (3), 533–563. 10.1353/lan.2015.0047
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0047 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2017) Semantics and Morphosyntactic variation: qualities and the grammar of property concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744580.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744580.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Green, L.
    (2013) African american vernacular english. Language in the USA: Themes for the 21st Century, E. Finegan , and J. R. Rickford , Eds., Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Huang, C.-T. J.
    (2015) On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory. Chinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Izvorski, R.
    (1997) The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 7. 10.3765/salt.v7i0.2795
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v7i0.2795 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kaplan, D.
    (1977) Demonstratives. Themes from Kaplan, J. Almog , J. Perry , and H. Wettstein , Eds., Oxford: OUP, 481–563.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kennedy, C.
    (2013) Two sources of subjectivity: qualitative assessment and dimensional uncertainty. Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy, 56:2–3 (258–277). 10.1080/0020174X.2013.784483
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2013.784483 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kennedy, C. , and M. Willer
    (2016) Subjective attitudes and counterstance contingency. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT-26). 10.3765/salt.v26i0.3936
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3936 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kolbel, M.
    (2003) Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society 104 , 53–73. 10.1111/1467‑9264.t01‑1‑00003
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9264.t01-1-00003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Korotkova, N.
    (2016) Disagreement with evidentials: a call for subjectivity. JerSem: The 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, J. Hunter , M. Simons , and M. Stone , Eds., 65–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lasersohn, P.
    (2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28 (6), 643–686. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑0596‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x [Google Scholar]
  35. (2017) Subjectivity and Perspective in Truth-Theoretic Semantics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Li, X.
    (2018) Measurement scales and gradability: on the semantics of the possessive property concept construction in mandarin chinese. North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics 30 , The Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. MacFarlane, J.
    (2014) Assessment sensitivity: relative truth and its applications. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682751.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682751.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Maienborn, C.
    (2005) A discourse-based account of spanish ser/estar. Linguistics, 43 (1), 155–180. 10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.155
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.155 [Google Scholar]
  39. Matthewson, L. , H. Davis , and H. Rullmann
    (2007) Evidentials as epistemic modals: evidence from statimcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7, 203–256. 10.1075/livy.7.07mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.7.07mat [Google Scholar]
  40. Moltmann, F.
    (2010) Relative truth and the first person. Philosophical Studies, 150, 187–220. 10.1007/s11098‑009‑9383‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9383-9 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2012) Two kinds of first-person-oriented content. Synthese, 184 (2), 157–177. 10.1007/s11229‑010‑9730‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9730-6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Morzycki, M.
    (2016) Modification–Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Murray, S. E.
    (2010) Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. Ph.D. thesis, The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2017) The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ninan, D.
    (2014) Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. Semantics and linguistics Theory. LS., T. Snider , S. D’Antonio , and M. Weigand , Eds., 24.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Nutys, J.
    (2001) Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383–400. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pearson, H.
    (2013) A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics, 30 (1), 103–154. 10.1093/jos/ffs001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Saebo, K. J.
    (2009) Judgment ascriptions. Linguist and philosophers, 32, 327–352. 10.1007/s10988‑009‑9063‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9063-4 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schaffer, J.
    (2011) Perspective in taste predicates and epistemic modals. Epistemic modality, A. Egan , and B. Weatherson , Eds., Oxford University Press, 179–226. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schlenker, P.
    (2011) Indexicality and de se reports. Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning, K. V. Heusinger , C. Maienborn , and P. Portner , Eds., Vol.2, Mouton de Gruyter, 1561–1604.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2020) The semantics/pragmatics interface. Cambridge Handbook of Formal Philosophy, Aloni , and Dekker , Eds., Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Stephenson, T.
    (2002) Toward a theory of subjective meaning. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (2007) Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and philosophy, 30 (4), 487–525. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9023‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4 [Google Scholar]
  54. Stojanovic, I.
    (2007) Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and philosophy, 30 (6), 691–706. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9030‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9030-5 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tovena, L. M.
    (2001) Neg-raising: Negation as failure. Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, V. S.-V. Jack Hoeksema , Hotze Rullmann , and T. van der Wouden , Eds., Vol.40, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 331–356. 10.1075/la.40.14tov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.40.14tov [Google Scholar]
  56. von Fintel, K. , and A. Gillies
    (2008) An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. Oxford studies in epistemology, T. Gendler , and Hawthorne , Eds., Vol.2, Oxford: OUP, 32–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. (2010) Must…stay…strong!Natural language semantics, 18, 351–383. 10.1007/s11050‑010‑9058‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9058-2 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2011) ‘might’ made right. Epistemic modality, A. Egan , and B. Weatherson , Eds., Oxford University Press, 108–130. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  59. Willet, T.
    (1988) A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12 (1), 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  60. Xun, E. , G. Rao , X. Xiao , and J. Zang
    (2016) Development of bcc corpus in the context of big data. Corpus Linguistics, 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Yalcin, S.
    (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind, 116 (464). 10.1093/mind/fzm983
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzm983 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2011) Nonfactualism about epistemic modality. Epistemic modality, A. Egan , and B. Weatherson , Eds., Oxford University Press, 295–332. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  63. Zakkou, J.
    (2015) Tasty contextualism. Ph.D. thesis, Humboldt University of Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhang, Y.
    (2019) Nominal property concepts and substance possession in chinese, unpublished PhD qualifying paper, Indiana University.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21007.con
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21007.con
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error