Colloquial Malay Discourse Particle punya as a Modal Evidential

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Hooi Ling Soh
{"title":"Colloquial Malay Discourse Particle punya as a Modal Evidential","authors":"Hooi Ling Soh","doi":"10.1353/ol.2019.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In this paper, I present an analysis of the discourse particle punya in Colloquial Malay as a modal evidential. I claim that the use of punya indicates that the attitude holder is certain about the truth of the propositional content of the utterance and that the source of the information presented is of the inferential type. I show that the attitude holder may be the speaker or the external argument of verbs of saying and believing. The proposed analysis connects punya with epistemic modal auxiliaries such as English must and Colloquial Malay preverbal modal mesti, both of which mark the attitude holder's certainty as well as the inferential nature of the evidence for the asserted proposition. However, unlike epistemic must/mesti, which may appear in questions under certain aspectual conditions, punya cannot appear in questions. I claim that punya differs from must/mesti in who can be considered the attitude holder of the evidence/knowledge. In particular, while the attitude holder of a must/mesti statement can be a contextually relevant group that is indeterminate, this is not possible for a punya statement. I argue that this difference is the source of the contrasting behaviors of punya versus must/mesti in questions. The current analysis adds to the empirical base on the crosslinguistic patterning of the connection between modality and evidentiality and has implications on the notion of \"evidential perspective shift.\"","PeriodicalId":51848,"journal":{"name":"OCEANIC LINGUISTICS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/ol.2019.0013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OCEANIC LINGUISTICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2019.0013","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:In this paper, I present an analysis of the discourse particle punya in Colloquial Malay as a modal evidential. I claim that the use of punya indicates that the attitude holder is certain about the truth of the propositional content of the utterance and that the source of the information presented is of the inferential type. I show that the attitude holder may be the speaker or the external argument of verbs of saying and believing. The proposed analysis connects punya with epistemic modal auxiliaries such as English must and Colloquial Malay preverbal modal mesti, both of which mark the attitude holder's certainty as well as the inferential nature of the evidence for the asserted proposition. However, unlike epistemic must/mesti, which may appear in questions under certain aspectual conditions, punya cannot appear in questions. I claim that punya differs from must/mesti in who can be considered the attitude holder of the evidence/knowledge. In particular, while the attitude holder of a must/mesti statement can be a contextually relevant group that is indeterminate, this is not possible for a punya statement. I argue that this difference is the source of the contrasting behaviors of punya versus must/mesti in questions. The current analysis adds to the empirical base on the crosslinguistic patterning of the connection between modality and evidentiality and has implications on the notion of "evidential perspective shift."
马来语口语化语篇小词punya作为情态证据
摘要:本文对马来语口语中的语篇助词punya作为语气证据进行了分析。我认为双关语的使用表明态度持有者对话语命题内容的真实性是确定的,并且所呈现的信息的来源是推理类型的。我表明态度持有者可能是说话人,也可能是说和相信动词的外部论证者。所提出的分析将双关语与认知语气助词联系起来,如英语必须和马来语口语前语气助词,这两种助词都标志着态度持有者的确定性以及所断言命题证据的推理性质。然而,与在某些方面条件下可能出现在问题中的认知必然性/mesti不同,punya不能出现在问题上。我声称punya与must/mesti的不同之处在于谁可以被视为证据/知识的态度持有者。特别是,虽然must/mesti语句的态度持有者可以是一个不确定的上下文相关群体,但这对于punya语句来说是不可能的。我认为,这种差异是punya和must/mesti在问题中对比行为的根源。目前的分析增加了模态和证据性之间联系的跨语言模式的经验基础,并对“证据视角转变”的概念产生了影响
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
OCEANIC LINGUISTICS
OCEANIC LINGUISTICS LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
44.40%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Oceanic Linguistics is the only journal devoted exclusively to the study of the indigenous languages of the Oceanic area and parts of Southeast Asia. The thousand-odd languages within the scope of the journal are the aboriginal languages of Australia, the Papuan languages of New Guinea, and the languages of the Austronesian (or Malayo-Polynesian) family. Articles in Oceanic Linguistics cover issues of linguistic theory that pertain to languages of the area, report research on historical relations, or furnish new information about inadequately described languages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信