On the expression of mistaken beliefs in Australian languages

IF 1.7 2区文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

Linguistic Typology Pub Date : 2023-03-31 DOI:10.1515/lingty-2022-0023

William B. McGregor

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper explores the expression of mistaken beliefs – as in for example the boy mistakenly believes that the turtle is dead (whereas in fact it is alive) – in the Indigenous languages of Australia. It is shown that some mode of expressing this meaning is attested in around 40% of the languages in a selection of 149 language varieties. In over 90% of the languages showing some mode of expressing the target meaning, it is – or can be – achieved through grammatical morphemes or constructions more or less dedicated to the expression of mistaken beliefs. These include particles, enclitics and various types of complement construction involving verbs of thinking, that frequently also convey meanings of saying, doing and hearing, rarely that specify the thought as mistaken. In just four or five languages, however, the meaning is attested only as a pragmatic implicature of a general statement of belief. To the extent possible given the limitations of the sources, the paper examines the range of meanings and uses of the morphemes/constructions expressing mistaken beliefs.

查看原文本刊更多论文

论澳大利亚语言中错误信念的表达

摘要:本文探讨了澳大利亚土著语言中错误信念的表达——例如，一个男孩错误地认为乌龟是死的(而实际上它是活的)。研究表明，在149种语言变体中，约有40%的语言证实了这种意义的某种表达方式。在90%以上表现出某种目的意义表达方式的语言中，目的意义是或可以通过语法语素或结构或多或少地用于表达错误信念来实现的。这些包括小词、引语和各种类型的涉及思维动词的补语结构，它们通常也表达说、做和听的意思，很少指明思想是错误的。然而，在只有四到五种语言中，其意义仅被证明为一般信念陈述的语用含义。在资源有限的情况下，本文尽可能考察了表达错误信念的语素/结构的意义范围和用法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Linguistic Typology Multiple-

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

5.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Linguistic Typology provides a forum for all work of relevance to the study of language typology and cross-linguistic variation. It welcomes work taking a typological perspective on all domains of the structure of spoken and signed languages, including historical change, language processing, and sociolinguistics. Diverse descriptive and theoretical frameworks are welcomed so long as they have a clear bearing on the study of cross-linguistic variation. We welcome cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of linguistic diversity, as well as work dealing with just one or a few languages, as long as it is typologically informed and typologically and theoretically relevant, and contains new empirical evidence.