Latvian verbs of speaking and their relations to evidentiality

Kalbotyra Pub Date : 2017-01-27 DOI:10.15388/KLBT.2016.10367
Joanna Chojnicka
{"title":"Latvian verbs of speaking and their relations to evidentiality","authors":"Joanna Chojnicka","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper offers a functional analysis of three Latvian verbs of speaking used in their indicative third person forms – saka, runā and stāsta ‘say(s), speak(s) and talk(s)’ – based on the Latvian language corpus online (www.korpuss.lv) and, additionally, on examples excerpted from Internet discourse. The article discusses semantic and syntactic similarities and differences between these words, the functions of particular constructions distinguished according to specific syntactic criteria (presence vs. absence of a subject), and the use of these verbs in combination with the Latvian verb form traditionally associated with (potential) evidential meanings, the oblique (atstāstījuma izteiksme). While the use of verbs of speaking for introducing reported speech is seen as unproblematic, the relationship between verba dicendi and evidentiality requires more attention and remains in focus throughout this study. In order to offer an in-depth overview of the nature of this relationship, the relations between reported speech and evidentiality, as well as the oblique and evidentiality, are also briefly considered. The paper concludes that the possibility of the three verbs functioning as evidential markers depends on considerations of theoretical/terminological nature (how to define evidentiality, should reported speech be considered part of it, etc.) and also, to some extent, on the way the subject is realized in verba dicendi constructions (specific human agent vs. non-specific empty subject and absent or zero subject).","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"59-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kalbotyra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The paper offers a functional analysis of three Latvian verbs of speaking used in their indicative third person forms – saka, runā and stāsta ‘say(s), speak(s) and talk(s)’ – based on the Latvian language corpus online (www.korpuss.lv) and, additionally, on examples excerpted from Internet discourse. The article discusses semantic and syntactic similarities and differences between these words, the functions of particular constructions distinguished according to specific syntactic criteria (presence vs. absence of a subject), and the use of these verbs in combination with the Latvian verb form traditionally associated with (potential) evidential meanings, the oblique (atstāstījuma izteiksme). While the use of verbs of speaking for introducing reported speech is seen as unproblematic, the relationship between verba dicendi and evidentiality requires more attention and remains in focus throughout this study. In order to offer an in-depth overview of the nature of this relationship, the relations between reported speech and evidentiality, as well as the oblique and evidentiality, are also briefly considered. The paper concludes that the possibility of the three verbs functioning as evidential markers depends on considerations of theoretical/terminological nature (how to define evidentiality, should reported speech be considered part of it, etc.) and also, to some extent, on the way the subject is realized in verba dicendi constructions (specific human agent vs. non-specific empty subject and absent or zero subject).
拉脱维亚语的说话动词及其与证据的关系
本文基于拉脱维亚在线语言语料库(www.korpuss.lv),以及从互联网话语中摘录的例子,对三个拉脱维亚口语动词(saka、runā和stāsta‘say(s)、speak(s)和talk(s)’)的指示性第三人称形式进行了功能分析。文章讨论了这些词在语义和句法上的异同,根据特定句法标准区分的特定结构的功能(主语的存在与否),以及这些动词与传统上与(潜在)证据意义相关的拉脱维亚动词形式的结合使用,斜方(atstāstījuma izteiksme)。虽然使用口语动词来介绍所报道的言语被认为是没有问题的,但动词dicendi和证据性之间的关系需要更多的关注,并且在整个研究中仍然是焦点。为了深入了解这种关系的性质,还简要考虑了报告言语与证据性以及间接性与证据性之间的关系。文章得出结论,这三个动词充当证据标记的可能性取决于理论/术语性质的考虑(如何定义证据性,报告的语音是否应被视为证据性的一部分等),在某种程度上,在实现主体的方式上,使用verba-ddicendi结构(特定的人类主体与非特定的空主体和缺席或零主体)。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
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