Lade Inhalt...

Catching the Elusive

Lexical evidentiality markers in Slavic languages (A questionnaire study and its background)

von Björn Wiemer (Autor:in)
Monographie 446 Seiten
Reihe: Slavolinguistica, Band 23

Zusammenfassung

Evidentiality deals with the marking of information source, that is with means that specify how we come to know what we (think to) know. For instance, such means indicate whether knowledge derives from hearsay, or whether an inference has been based on perception or on knowledge about habits. Often these indications are vague. This book focuses on sentence adverbs and so-called function words in Slavic languages. Six of them were subject of a questionnaire survey, whose discussion, preceded by general methodological background, occupies the second part of this book. The first half contains a thorough consideration of notional links between evidentiality and related domains, first of all of epistemic modality, and it discusses the intricacies of doing lexicography of evidential marking.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the author
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • Prologue
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Abbreviations
  • 1 Linguistic terms
  • 2 Language names
  • 3 Glosses
  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Evidentiality in Slavic and elsewhere
  • 2.1 Restricting the domain
  • 2.1.1 A general remark on semantic decomposition and onomasiological classification
  • 2.1.2 A note on the classification of linguistic units by morphosyntactic properties
  • 2.1.3 Criteria for inventorizing evidential units
  • 2.1.4 Types of propositional markers
  • 2.2 The relation to epistemic modality
  • 2.2.1 General survey of positions
  • 2.2.2 Epistemics in a broad view and methodological criticism: a reply to Polish formal semantics
  • 2.2.2.1 Knowledge as the key concept
  • 2.2.2.2 Danielewiczowa’s (2012) criticism
  • 2.2.2.3 Summary
  • 2.2.3 Epistemic agnosticism and reliability
  • 2.2.4 Approaches from a Kratzerian perspective
  • 2.2.4.1 The basic ingredients of decomposition
  • 2.2.4.2 The specific behaviour of reportives
  • 2.2.4.3 Fluctuation in the assessment of the epistemic–evidential relationship
  • 2.2.4.4 Restrictions on the evidence type for inferences
  • 2.2.5 Concluding remarks on approaches
  • 2.3 Propositions, states-of-affairs, and illocutions
  • 2.3.1 The basis of the distinctions
  • 2.3.2 Scope over illocutions?
  • 2.3.3 Different scopes for evidential markers?
  • 2.4 Scope
  • 2.4.1 Explicit and implicit semantic scope
  • 2.4.2 Variable insertion of scopes and holistic readings.
  • 2.4.3 Modal and evidential concord
  • 2.5 Taxonomies, networks, and maps
  • 2.6 Subclassification
  • 2.6.1 Inferentials: subclassification and delimitation from epistemic meaning
  • 2.6.1.1 Jakovleva (1994): xarakternaja vs. nexarakternaja informacija
  • 2.6.1.1.1 Ioanesjan’s criticism
  • 2.6.1.1.2 Amendments by Bulygina and Šmelev
  • 2.6.1.2 Squartini (2008): circumstantials vs. generics
  • 2.6.1.3 Problems with inferences not based on perception
  • 2.6.2 Extensions into remembrance: remembrals
  • 2.6.3 Extensions into hearsay
  • 2.6.4 Subdivisions in the field of hearsay
  • 2.7 Evidential marking in Slavic
  • 2.7.1 Raising and seem/look-verbs
  • 2.7.1.1 On seem-verbs in North Slavic
  • 2.7.1.2 Iconic relationship between semantics and syntax
  • 2.7.1.3 SoA–proposition contrasts and epistemic modification.
  • 2.7.1.4 The speaker as default cognizer
  • 2.7.1.5 Raising in Bulgarian?
  • 2.7.2 Particles vs. sentence adverbs
  • 2.8 How to get at lists of lexical units?
  • 2.9 Profiles of the markers selected for the survey
  • 2.9.1 Russian
  • 2.9.1.1 Reportive markers
  • 2.9.1.2 Perception-based inferences
  • 2.9.1.3 Deductive inferences
  • 2.9.2 Polish
  • 2.9.2.1 Reportive markers
  • 2.9.2.2 Preference for perception-based inferences
  • 2.9.2.3 Inferential markers without a preference for perception-based inferences
  • 2.9.3 Slovak
  • 2.9.3.1 Reportive markers
  • 2.9.3.2 Perception-based inferences
  • 2.9.3.3 Deductive inferences
  • 2.9.4 Croatian
  • 2.9.4.1 Reportive markers
  • 2.9.4.2 “New quotatives”?
  • 2.9.4.3 Preference for perception-based inferences
  • 2.9.4.4 General inferential markers without reportive extensions
  • 2.9.5 Serbian
  • 2.9.6 Bulgarian
  • 2.9.6.1 Reportive markers
  • 2.9.6.2 General inferential markers, preference for circumstantial evidence
  • 2.9.6.3 Markers of circumstantial and deductive inference
  • 2.9.6.4 Markers of deductive inference
  • 2.9.7 General remark concerning South Slavic
  • 3 Experimental and quantitative studies in linguistics
  • 3.1 On judgments
  • 3.1.1 Intuitions
  • 3.1.1.1 Remarks on Chomskyan ‘introspective data’
  • 3.1.1.2 Judgments and metaknowledge
  • 3.1.1.3 Validity and judgment–use mismatches
  • 3.1.1.4 Acceptability and frequency
  • 3.1.1.5 Frequency and entrenchment
  • 3.1.1.6 Non-quantified observations
  • 3.1.1.6.1 Obliquely marked agent in the Latvian passive
  • 3.1.1.6.2 Communicatively downgraded seem and look in Serbian and Croatian
  • 3.1.1.6.3 Polish counterfactual było + INF
  • 3.1.1.6.4 Polish optative żeby + -ł
  • 3.1.1.6.5 Complementizer choice after CTPs indicating weak epistemic support
  • 3.1.1.6.5.1 Polish że vs. żeby: acceptability
  • 3.1.1.6.5.2 Russian čto vs. čtoby: range of interpretations
  • 3.1.1.6.6 Subsuming remark
  • 3.1.2 Grammaticality vs. acceptability
  • 3.1.3 Truth values, felicity conditions, and (probably) more
  • 3.1.4 Summary
  • 3.2 Methods and measurement
  • 3.2.1 Quantitative vs. qualitative methods
  • 3.2.2 Corpus-based vs. experimental data
  • 3.2.2.1 Backus/Mos (2011): Productivity of possibility-expressions in Dutch
  • 3.2.2.2 Reshöft (2011): Motion events in L2-acquisition
  • 3.2.2.3 Adli (2004; 2011): Positions of subjects and wh-words in Spanish
  • 3.2.2.4 Divjak (2008): Different frequency measures for Polish clausal complementation
  • 3.2.2.5 Featherston (2005b): Generalizations on formal syntax
  • 3.2.2.6 Beebe/Clark Cummings (1996): Speech acts across cultures
  • 3.2.3 Questionnaire designs
  • 3.2.3.1 Likert-scales and semantic differential scales
  • 3.2.3.2 Bipolar and unipolar orientation of scales
  • 3.2.3.3 Magnitude Estimation
  • 3.2.3.4 Graphic rating scales
  • 3.2.3.5 Thermometer judgments
  • 3.2.4 Graded judgments and introspection as antipodes?
  • 3.2.5 The Decathlon model
  • 3.2.6 Summary
  • 3.3 Domains of application, in particular propositional modifiers
  • 3.4 Recapitulation
  • 4 The questionnaire study
  • 4.1 Guiding questions behind the design
  • 4.2 The experimental design: pre-test and tuning
  • 4.3 The final questionnaire survey
  • 4.3.1 Informants and schedule
  • 4.3.2 Methodological considerations on the composition of the questionnaire
  • 4.4 The questionnaire study: analyses and results
  • 4.4.1 Task 1: Hedgehog pictures
  • 4.4.1.1 Subtask 1.1 (Production)
  • 4.4.1.1.1 Results per language
  • 4.4.1.1.2 Comparison across the six languages
  • 4.4.1.2 Subtask 1.2 (Evaluation)
  • 4.4.2 Task 2: Functional distribution of heterosemic units
  • 4.4.2.1 Remarks on specific units and syntactic contexts
  • 4.4.2.2 Correlations between syntactic contexts and temporal relations
  • 4.4.2.3 Heterosemic units among each other
  • 4.4.2.4 A global picture
  • 4.4.2.5 Perceived difference of meaning?
  • 4.4.2.6 Conclusions on the heterosemy test
  • 4.4.3 Task 3: Cartoons (snowman, mushrooms)
  • 4.4.3.1 Procedure
  • 4.4.3.2 Analysis
  • 4.4.4 Task 4: Scope of reportive and inferential markers
  • 4.4.4.1 Procedure
  • 4.4.4.2 Language-specific adaptations
  • 4.4.4.3 Analysis of output
  • 4.4.4.3.1 Step 1
  • 4.4.4.3.2 Step 2
  • 4.4.4.3.3 Step 3
  • 4.4.4.3.4 Step 4
  • 4.4.4.3.5 Concluding remarks
  • 4.4.5 Task 5: Squartini-framed insertion of inferentials
  • 4.4.5.1 Procedure
  • 4.4.5.2 Analysis
  • 4.4.6 Task 6: Retelling a report (newspaper article)
  • 4.4.6.1 Procedure
  • 4.4.6.2 Results
  • 4.4.6.3 Particular markers and trustworthiness
  • 4.4.6.4 Additional remarks
  • 4.4.7 Manipulation of corpus examples
  • 4.5 Summary: resumption and overarching results
  • 5 Recapitulation and outlook
  • References
  • Electronic corpora and other data bases
  • Appendices
  • Appendix 1.1
  • Appendix 2
  • Appendix 10
  • Subject index

1 Introduction

[1] — У него был очень хороший коньяк.
Что? — она непонимающе посмотрела на меня.
У него с собой был коньяк. — А ты-то откуда знаешь?Я с ним пил.
(А. Геласимов: Ты можешь. 2001)

[2] — Икра у него была, — перебил Васька.
Откуда знаешь?По следам ребята нашли. У Старого моста свалил в Рыбную.
Ты… со своей икрой… на ней не написано, что это его.
(В. Ремизов: Воля вольная, Новый мир. 2013)

[3] [Юлия, 19] Слушай / ты ничего мне поведать не хочешь?
[Татьяна, 18] В смысле? [Юлия, 19] По поводу Рустама
[Татьяна, 18] А ты уже откуда знаешь? [Юлия, 19] Агентура хорошая. Говори!
(Разговоры студенток о досуге // Из коллекции Ульяновского университета, 2007)

Details

Seiten
446
ISBN (PDF)
9783631764985
ISBN (ePUB)
9783631764992
ISBN (MOBI)
9783631765005
ISBN (Paperback)
9783631756676
Sprache
Deutsch
Erscheinungsdatum
2019 (Februar)
Erschienen
Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2018. 446 pp., 7 fig. col., 16 fig. b/w, 64 tables

Biographische Angaben

Björn Wiemer (Autor:in)

Björn Wiemer: PhD (Slavic and General Linguistics) 1996, Hamburg. Konstanz University: research assistant (Slavic Languages) 1996–2003; postdoctoral thesis in 2002 (venia for Slavic and Baltic linguistics); assistant professor 2003–2007. Since Nov. 2007 chairholder of Slavic Linguistics at Mainz University.

Zurück

Titel: Catching the Elusive