1887
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper proposes an account of the interpretive effects of two discourse particles in Hungarian, and , within the view of context and context change developed in Farkas & Roelofsen (2017), and shows that the restrictions on their distribution follow from their interpretive properties. Building on Gyuris (2022), will be treated as signaling epistemic bias in both declaratives and interrogatives. Following Farkas (2022), will be treated as a non-intrusive question marker, which, in the account proposed, is incompatible with bias markers. The restrictions on the sentence types in which these particles occur, as well as the fact that there are restrictions on their co-occurence, will be derived from their interpretive contribution.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00016.far
2023-06-19
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Biezma, Maria
    2009 Alternative vs. polar questions: the cornering effect. InEd Cormany, Satoshi Ito & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory191. 37–54. Ithaca: CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v19i0.2519
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2519 [Google Scholar]
  2. Biezma, Maria & Kyle Rawlins
    2012 Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy351. 361–406. 10.1007/s10988‑012‑9123‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9123-z [Google Scholar]
  3. Djärv, Kajsa
    2022 On the interpretation and distribution of embedded main clause syntax: new perspectives on complex discourse moves. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics71. 10.16995/glossa.5752
    https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5752 [Google Scholar]
  4. Eckardt, Regine
    2020 Conjectural questions: The case of German verb-final wohl questions. Semantics and Pragmatics131. 9–406. 10.3765/sp.13.9
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.9 [Google Scholar]
  5. Eckardt, Regine & Andrea Beltrama
    2019 Evidentials and questions. InChristopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics121. 121–155. Paris: CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Farkas, Donka F.
    2022 Non-intrusive questions as a special type of non-canonical questions. Journal of Semantics391. 295–337. 10.1093/jos/ffac001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffac001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Farkas, Donka F. & Kim Bruce
    2010 On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of semantics271. 81–118. 10.1093/jos/ffp010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp010 [Google Scholar]
  8. Farkas, Donka F. & Floris Roelofsen
    2017 Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. Journal of Semantics341. 237–289. 10.1093/jos/ffw012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw012 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Beáta Gyuris
    2012 Pragmatic markers in Hungarian: Some introductory remarks. Acta Linguistica Hungarica591. 387–426. 10.1556/ALing.59.2012.4.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.59.2012.4.1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gunlogson, Christine
    2001 True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gyuris, Beáta
    2022 Evidentiality and the QUD: A study of talán ‘perhaps’ in Hungarian declaratives and interrogatives. InRemus Gergel, Ingo Reich, & Augustin Speyer (eds.), Particles in German, English, and beyond (Studies in Language Companion Series 224), 355–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.224.13gyu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.13gyu [Google Scholar]
  12. Hirayama, Hitomi
    2018 Discourse effects in biased questions in Japanese. InShin Fukuda, Mary Shin Kim & Mee-Jeong Park (eds.), Online Proceedings of Japanese and Korean Linguistics251. Stanford: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Incurvati, Luca & Julian J. Schlöder
    2019 Weak assertion. The Philosophical Quarterly691. 741–770. 10.1093/pq/pqz016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqz016 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ladd, Robert D.
    1981 A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. InProceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society171. 164–171. Chicago: CLS.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Roelofsen, Floris & Donka F. Farkas
    2015 Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language911. 359–414. 10.1353/lan.2015.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017 [Google Scholar]
  16. Romero, Maribel & Chung-Hye Han
    2004 On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy271. 609–658. 10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94 [Google Scholar]
  17. Rudin, Deniz
    2018 Rising above commitment. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2019 Embedded rising declaratives and embedded quotation. InKatherine Blake, Forrest Davis & Joseph Rhyne (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory291. Ithaca: CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v29i0.4594
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4594 [Google Scholar]
  19. Theiler, Nadine
    2019 Taking a unified perspective. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00016.far
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00016.far
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