1887
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Evidentiality conveys information about the nature – and reliability – of the information source. This paper investigates the Finnish reportative evidential (hearsay particle) and the dubitative particle (‘supposedly, allegedly, as if’). I propose a unifying analysis of two seemingly divergent uses of , and show how they contrast with . My analysis builds on and extends recent work on reportatives regarding the distinction between the Animator (the speaker who utters the sentence) and the Principal (the person whose commitments are being expressed). Furthermore, I suggest that the dubitative may point to the existence of non-assertive discourse moves and has implications for our understanding of the discourse role of ‘Principal.’ This work also informs typological work on evidentials and related expressions by providing a systematic investigation of reportative and dubitative markers in a non-Indo-European language.

This work is currently available as a sample.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00004.kai
2022-06-13
2024-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Yurievna
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Almazán, Jennifer
    2019 Evidentiality in Tagalog. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
  3. AnderBois, Scott
    2014 On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. InSemantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)24, 234–254. Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beltrama, Andrea
    2016 Bridging the gap: Intensifiers between semantic and social meaning. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago.
  5. Blain, Eleanor M. & Rose-Marie Déchaine
    2007 Evidential types: evidence from Cree dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics73. 257–291. 10.1086/521728
    https://doi.org/10.1086/521728 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cable, Seth
    2017 The Expression of modality in Tlingit: A paucity of grammatical devices. International Journal of American Linguistics83. 619–678. 10.1086/692975
    https://doi.org/10.1086/692975 [Google Scholar]
  7. Caudal, Patrick, John Henderson & Martina Faller
    2011On the Arrernte ‘quotative’ akwele. Talk presented at the42nd Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society (ALS), Australian National University, Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Celle, Agnes
    2009 Hearsay adverbs and modality. InRaphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil & Johan van der Auwera (eds.). Modality in English: Theory and description, 269–293. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213331.269
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213331.269 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, Eve
    2020 Perspective-taking and pretend-play: Precursors to figurative language use in young children. Journal of Pragmatics156. 100–109. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.012 [Google Scholar]
  10. Declerck, Renaat
    2009 Nonfactual at t’: A neglected modal concept. InRaphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil & Johan van der Auwera (eds.). Modality in English: Theory and description, 31–54. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213331.31
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213331.31 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Kjell Johan Sæbø
    2004 In a meditative mood: The semantics of the German reportative subjunctive. Natural Language Semantics12. 213–257. 10.1023/B:NALS.0000034514.27887.d9
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALS.0000034514.27887.d9 [Google Scholar]
  12. Faller, Martina
    2002 Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
  13. 2014 Reportativity, (not-)at-issueness, and assertion. InH. Leung, Z. O’Hagan, S. Bakst, A. Lutzross, J. Manker, N. Rolle & K. Sardinha (eds.). Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley: BLS. 62–84. 10.3765/bls.v40i0.3133
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v40i0.3133 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2019 The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives. Semantics and Pragmatics12(8). 1–46. 10.3765/sp.12.8
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Farkas, Donka F. & Kim B. Bruce
    2010 On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics27. 81–118. 10.1093/jos/ffp010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Farkas, Donka F. & Floris Roelofsen
    2017 Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. Journal of Semantics34. 237–289. 10.1093/jos/ffw012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw012 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fintel, Kai von
    2004 Would you believe it? The King of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. InMarga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.). Descriptions and Beyond, 315–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    1979 Footing. Semiotica25. 1–30. 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grice, Paul
    1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gunlogson, Christine
    2001True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hakulinen, A., M. Vilkuna, R. Korhonen, V. Koivisto, T. R. Heinonen & I. Alho
    2004Iso suomen kielioppi [The large grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kangasniemi, Heikki
    1992Modal expressions in Finnish. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kittilä, Seppo & Erika Sandman
    2013The particles näköjään (‘I see/seemingly’) and kuulemma (‘hearsay’) of Finnish as evidential markers. Talk presented at the12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC), June 2013, University of Alberta, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kittilä, Seppo, Lotta Jalava & Erika Sandman
    2018 What can different types of linguistic data teach us on evidentiality?InAd Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.). Evidence for evidentiality, 281–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.61.12kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.12kit [Google Scholar]
  25. Korotkova, Natasha
    2020 Evidential meaning and (not-)at-issueness. Semantics and Pragmatics13, article 4. 10.3765/sp.13.4
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.4 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016 Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
  27. Kuiri, Kaija
    1984Referointi kainuun ja pohjois-karjalan murteissa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Leslie, Alan
    1987 Pretense and representation: The origins of ‘Theory of Mind.’ Psychological Review94. 412–426. 10.1037/0033‑295X.94.4.412
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.4.412 [Google Scholar]
  29. Murray, Sarah
    2010 Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
  30. 2014 Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics7. 1–53. 10.3765/sp.7.2
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Nordlund, Taru, & Heli Pekkarinen
    2014 Grammaticalisation of the Finnish stance adverbial muka ‘as if, supposedly, allegedly’. InI. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker & J. Tuominen (eds.). Diachronic corpus pragmatics (Pragmatics & Beyond, new series, 243), 53–75. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.243.06nor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.06nor [Google Scholar]
  32. Pancheva, Roumyana & Deniz Rudin
    2019 Speaker discourse roles and the discourse profile of reportative evidentials. InJ. Schloeder, D. McHugh & F. Roelofsen (eds.). Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, 327–336.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Papafragou, Anna
    2006 Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua116. 1688–1702. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pearson, Hazel
    2010 A modification of the “Hey, wait a minute” test. Snippets22. 7–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Potts, Chris
    2005The logic of conversational implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rozumko, Agata
    2019 Between acknowledgement and countering: Interpersonal functions of English reportative adverbs. Journal of Pragmatics140. 1–11. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.011 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sadeniemi, Matti & Jouko Vesikansa
    1988–1989Nykysuomen Sanakirja [Dictionary of Contemporary Finnish]. Porvoo: WSOY.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sauerland, Uli & Matthias Schenner
    2007 Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. InE. Puig-Waldmüller (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung11, 525–539. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Seppänen, Eeva-Leena
    1997 Suomen perfektin merkityksestä keskusteluaineiston valossa [The meaning of the perfect tense in Finnish in the light of conversational data]. Virittäjä101. 2–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Shanon, Benny
    1976 On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language14. 247–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts
    2010 What projects and why. InSemantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, 309–327. Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584 [Google Scholar]
  42. Snider, Todd
    2017 Anaphoric reference to propositions. PhD dissertation. Cornell University.
  43. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1978 Assertion. InPeter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 315–332. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Taniguchi, Ai
    2017 The formal pragmatics of non-at-issue intensification in English and Japanese. PhD dissertation, Michigan State University.
  45. Tonhauser, Judith
    2012 Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. InProceedings of Semantics of Under-represented Languages6, 239–254. Amherst: GLSA
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Walker, Marilyn A.
    1996 Inferring acceptance and rejection in dialogue by default rules of inference. Language and Speech39. 265–304. 10.1177/002383099603900306
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099603900306 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wiemer, Björn & Anna Socka
    2017a How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? Part 1. Studies in Polish Linguistics12. 21–56. 10.4467/23005920SPL.17.002.6729
    https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.17.002.6729 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2017b How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? Part 2. Studies in Polish Linguistics12. 75–95. 10.4467/23005920SPL.17.002.6729
    https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.17.002.6729 [Google Scholar]
  49. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language12. 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00004.kai
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00004.kai
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Animator; doubt; dubitative; evidentiality; Finnish; hearsay; kuulemma; muka; Principal; reportative evidential
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