Catching the Elusive

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