1887
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739

Abstract

Abstract

This paper provides the first formal account of the meaning of the pragmatic marker in the Székely (Szekler) dialect of Hungarian. Using standard diagnostics of sentence types, we argue that it is compatible with declaratives and constituent interrogatives but not with polar interogatives. We suggest that it makes a contribution analogous to that of German in declaratives, and argue that its use-conditional meaning can be described along the lines proposed for by Eckardt (2020). Accordingly, is analyzed as an inferential evidential, marking that the prejacent is defeasibly entailed by the maximal body of knowledge of the speaker. The paper discusses contrasts between the distribution and felicity of vs. , and vs. , an inferential particle that appears both in the standard and in the Székely dialect.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00017.gyu
2023-06-19
2024-07-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jul.00017.gyu.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00017.gyu&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2015 The Swedish modal particle väl in a contrastive perspective. Nordic Journal of English Studies141. 174–200. 10.35360/njes.344
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.344 [Google Scholar]
  2. B. Lőrinczy, Éva
    (ed.) 1988Új magyar tájszótár. [New Hungarian dictionary of regional expressions]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
    2008Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444304176
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 [Google Scholar]
  4. Csűry, Bálint
    1930 A székely és csángó mondathanglejtés [The Székely and the Csángó sentence intonation]. Magyar Nyelv261. 249–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Davis, Christopher, Christopher Potts & Margaret Speas
    2007 The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. Semantics and Linguistic Theory171. 71–88. 10.3765/salt.v17i0.2966
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v17i0.2966 [Google Scholar]
  6. Eckardt, Regine
    2020 Conjectural questions: The case of German verb-final wohl questions. Semantics and Pragmatics131. 1–54. 10.3765/sp.13.9
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Eckardt, Regine & Andrea Beltrama
    2019 Evidentials and questions. InChristopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics121. 121–155. Paris: CSSP.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. É. Kiss, Katalin
    2002The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511755088
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755088 [Google Scholar]
  9. Faller, Martina T.
    2002 Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
  10. 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]
  11. 2023 Bias and anti-bias: two case studies from Hungarian. Journal of Uralic Linguistics21. 96–126. 10.1075/jul.00016.far
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00016.far [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. . to appear. What does vajon contribute?InRadek Šimik, Kateřina Hrdinková, Maria Onoeva & Anna Staňková eds. Sinn und Bedeutung271.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Göbel, Alex
    2018 Evidentiality and undirected questions: A new account of the German discourse particle wohl. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics241. 77–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gunlogson, Christine
    2003True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gutzmann, Daniel
    2015Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gyuris, Beáta
    2017 New perspectives on bias in polar questions: A study of Hungarian -e. International Review of Pragmatics91. 1–50. 10.1163/18773109‑00000003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00000003 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2019 Thoughts on the semantics and pragmatics of rising declaratives in English and rise-fall declaratives in Hungarian. InBeáta Gyuris, Katalin Mády & Gábor Recski (eds.), K + K = 120. Papers dedicated to László Kálmán and András Kornai on the occasion of their 60th birthdays, 247–280. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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, 355–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.224.13gyu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.13gyu [Google Scholar]
  20. Gyuris, Beáta, Katalin Mády & Cecília Sarolta Molnár
    2021 Kísérletek kérdő mondatokkal: Munkamegosztás és dialektális különbségek [Experiments with interrogatives: Division of labour and dialectal differences]. Talk given atPragmatika Kerekasztal: Kísérletes Pragmatika Magyarországon [Pragmatics Roundtable: Experimental Pragmatics in Hungary]. 10 September 2021, University of Debrecen.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gyuris, Beáta & Csenge Nagy
    2021Talán and ejsze: a comparative study of inferential particles in two dialects. Talk given atICSH15, University of Pécs, 25 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heycock, Caroline
    2017 Embedded root phenomena. InMartin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom068
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom068 [Google Scholar]
  23. Huszthy, Bálint & Bíborka Sándor
    2021 Székely hanglejtésformák: Egy székelyudvarhelyi esettanulmány [Székely intonational patterns: A case study from Székelyudvarhely]. InKatalin Balogné Bérces, Attila Hegedűs & Balázs Surányi (eds.), Nyelvelmélet és dialektológia 5, 107–129. Budapest: PPKE BTK Elméleti Nyelvészeti Tanszék – Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszék.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Ittzés, Nóra
    (ed.) 2016A magyar nyelv nagyszótára VI. [Comprehensive Dictionary of Hungarian VI]. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Juhász, Dezső
    2001 A magyar nyelvjárások területi egységei: A nyelvjárási régiók [Geographical units of Hungarian dialects: Dialectal regions]. InJenő Kiss (ed.), Magyar dialektológia [Hungarian dialectology], 262–316. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kenesei, István
    1994 Subordinate clauses. InFerenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian (Syntax and Semantics 27), 274–354. San Diego: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373174_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373174_005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kiefer, Ferenc
    1981 What is possible in Hungarian?Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae311. 147–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2018 Two kinds of epistemic modality in Hungarian. InZlatka Guentchéva (ed.), Epistemic modalities and evidentiality in cross-linguistic perspective, 281–295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110572261‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572261-013 [Google Scholar]
  30. Krifka, Manfred
    2021 Modelling questions in commitment spaces. InMoritz Cordes (ed.), Asking and answering: Rivalling approaches to interrogative methods, 63–95. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund
    2007 Speech act distinctions in grammar. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.005 [Google Scholar]
  32. Littell, Patrick, Lisa Matthewson & Tyler Peterson
    2010 On the semantics of conjectural questions. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics281, 89–104. Vancuver: UBCWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Murray, Sarah E.
    2017The semantics of evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Oravecz, Csaba, Tamás Váradi & Bálint Sass
    2014 The Hungarian Gigaword Corpus. InNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asunción Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.) LREC 2014 – Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evalutation, 1719–1723. Reykjavík: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Potts, Christopher
    2007 The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics331. 165–198. 10.1515/TL.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  37. Roberts, Craige
    2012 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics51. 1–69. Originally appeared inJae-Hak Toon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Papers in Semantics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics491, 91–136. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics. 10.3765/sp.5.6
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rooth, Mats
    1985 Association with focus. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.
  39. 1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics11. 75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rullmann, Hotze, Lisa Matthewson & Henry Davis
    2008 Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics161. 317–357. 10.1007/s11050‑008‑9036‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9036-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2017 Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua1861. 120–143. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tuzson, Edit
    2022 Az ejsze szó használata Csíkszenttamáson [The use of the word ejsze in Csíkszenttamás]. Cluj: Babes-Bolyai University MA-thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Varga, László
    2010 Boundary tones and the lack of intermediate phrase in Hungarian (revisiting the Hungarian calling contour). The Even Yearbook, 1–27. Budapest: Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language121. 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.00017.gyu
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): inferential evidential; pragmatic marker; sentence type; speech act; use condition
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