1887
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper presents an examination of syntactic constructions that are associated with the mirative interpretation of marking propositional content as being surprising or unexpected to the speaker. I report experimental evidence showing that certain options of marked word order in German are particularly suitable in mirative contexts. Cross-linguistic evidence offers good reasons to assume that mirative marking is also reflected in word order patterns. Having identified word order variation as one option to trigger mirative interpretations of utterances, I discuss the issue of distinguishing between information-structural and mirative effects of marked syntactic configurations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.2.07tro
2017-12-08
2019-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2012) The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–485. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergen, L. , Goodman, N. D. , & Levy, R.
    (2012) That’s what she (could have) said: How alternative utterances affect language use. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 120–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bianchi, V. , Bocci, G. , & Cruschina, S.
    (2015) Focus fronting and its implicatures. In E. O. Aboh , J. C. Schaeffer , & P. Sleeman (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2013: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 2013 (pp.1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/rllt.8.01bia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.8.01bia [Google Scholar]
  4. Bianchi, V. , & Cruschina, S.
    (2016) The derivation and interpretation of polar questions with a fronted focus. Lingua, 170, 47–68. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  5. Caudal, P. , & Nicolas, D.
    (2005) Types of degrees and types of event structures. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications (pp.277–300). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110913798.277
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913798.277 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cruschina, S.
    (2012) Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cruschina, S. , Giurgea, I. , & Remberger, E. M.
    (2015) Focus fronting between declaratives and exclamatives. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 60, 257–275.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. d’Avis, F.
    (2013) Exklamativsatz. In J. Meibauer , M. Steinbach , & H. Altmann (Eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen (pp.171–201). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110224832.171
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224832.171 [Google Scholar]
  9. de Reuse, W. J.
    (2003) Evidentiality in Western Apache. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp.79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54.07reu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.07reu [Google Scholar]
  10. Degen, J. , Trotzke, A. , Scontras, G. , Wittenberg, E. , & Goodman, N. D.
    (2016) Definitely, maybe: Approaching speaker commitment experimentally. Ms., University of Konstanz/Stanford University.
  11. DeLancey, S.
    (1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1, 33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fanselow, G. , & Lenertová, D.
    (2011) Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29, 169–209. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9109‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x [Google Scholar]
  13. Fodor, J. A.
    (1972) Troubles about actions. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp.48–69). Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2557‑7_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Frey, W.
    (2010) Ā-Movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German. Lingua, 120, 1416–1435. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  15. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700016613
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hartmann, K. , & Zimmermann, M.
    (2007) In place – out of place? Focus in Hausa. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizing across languages (pp.365–403). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.100.20har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.20har [Google Scholar]
  18. Jacobs, J.
    (1991) Focus ambiguities. Journal of Semantics, 8, 1–36. doi: 10.1093/jos/8.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/8.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Krifka, M.
    (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209–257.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lazard, G.
    (1999) Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity or other?Linguistic Typology, 3, 91–109. doi: 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91 [Google Scholar]
  21. Morzycki, M.
    (2012) Adjectival extremeness: Degree modification and contextually restricted scales. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30, 576–609. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9162‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9162-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. Müller, S.
    (2002) Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions and particle verbs in German. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Peterson, T.
    (2010) Examining the mirative and nonliteral uses of evidentials. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics, 28, 129–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2013) Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise. Ms., University of Toronto [available at: semanticsarchive.net].
  25. (this volume). Problematizing mirativity.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Portner, P. , & Rubinstein, A.
    (2016) Extreme and non-extreme deontic modals. In N. Charlow & M. Chrisman (Eds.), Deontic modality (pp.256–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717928.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717928.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Potts, C.
    (2007) Conventional implicatures: A distinguished class of meanings. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp.475–501). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2012) Conventional implicature and expressive content. In C. Maienborn , K. von Heusinger , & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 3 (pp.2516–2536). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Remberger, E. M.
    (2014) A comparative look at focus fronting in Romance. In A. Dufter & Á. S. Octavio de Toledo (Eds.), Left sentence peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, variationist and comparative perspectives (pp.383–418). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rett, J.
    (2011) Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 411–442. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑011‑9103‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9103-8 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2012) Miratives across constructions and languages. Talk at CUSP 5, 28October 2012, UCSD.
  32. Rett, J. , & Murray, S. E.
    (2013) A semantic account of mirative evidentials. Proceedings of SALT, 23, 453–472. doi: 10.3765/salt.v23i0.2687
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2687 [Google Scholar]
  33. Skopeteas, S. , & Fanselow, G.
    (2011) Focus and the exclusion of alternatives: On the interaction of syntactic structure with pragmatic inference. Lingua, 121, 1693–1706. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  34. Spector, B.
    (2005) Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In M. Aloni , A. Butler , & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics (pp.229–254). Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Trotzke, A.
    (2017) The grammar of emphasis: From information structure to the expressive dimension. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781501505881
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505881
  36. Trotzke, A. , & Turco, G.
    (2015) The grammatical reflexes of emphasis: Evidence from German wh-questions. Lingua, 168, 37–56. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Trotzke, A. , & Wittenberg, E.
    (2017) Expressive particle verbs and conditions on particle fronting. Journal of Linguistics, 53, 407–435. doi: 10.1017/S0022226716000153
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226716000153 [Google Scholar]
  38. Zanuttini, R. , & Portner, P.
    (2003) Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language, 79, 39–81. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0105
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0105 [Google Scholar]
  39. Zeisler, B.
    (this volume). Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself!: Evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Zeller, J.
    (2001) Particle verbs and local domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.41
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.41 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.2.07tro
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.2.07tro
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): acceptability study , information structure , mirative fronting and word order
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