{"title":"南艾马拉语中的直接证据性和话语","authors":"Gabriel Martínez Vera","doi":"10.1007/s11050-023-09220-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper discusses the discourse contrasts that arise in connection to direct evidentiality in Southern Aymara (henceforth, Aymara), an understudied Andean language. Aymara has two direct evidentials, the enclitic <i>=wa</i> and the covert morpheme <i>-</i>∅, which are used whenever the speaker has the best possible grounds for some proposition. I make the novel observation that a sentence with <i>=wa</i> can be felicitously uttered if the speaker attempts to update the common ground by addressing an issue on the table. In fact, the sentence with <i>=wa</i> that is uttered must be congruent with prior discourse; I tie this to the claim that <i>=wa</i> is a (presentational) focus marker (Proulx in Language Sciences 9(1):91–102, 1987). This paper thus claims that <i>=wa</i> is a marker that combines evidentiality and focus. In contrast, uttering a sentence with <i>-</i>∅ entails that the speaker’s contribution is already in the common ground, which likens this evidential to common ground management operators—there is no congruence requirement in this case. I identify which construction can be used in different discourse settings (conversation openers and telling anecdotes). I implement a formal analysis based on Farkas and Bruce (Journal of Semantics 27:81–118, 2010) and Faller (Semantics and Pragmatics 12(8):1–53, 2019) that links evidentiality and discourse.</p>","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Direct evidentiality and discourse in Southern Aymara\",\"authors\":\"Gabriel Martínez Vera\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11050-023-09220-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper discusses the discourse contrasts that arise in connection to direct evidentiality in Southern Aymara (henceforth, Aymara), an understudied Andean language. Aymara has two direct evidentials, the enclitic <i>=wa</i> and the covert morpheme <i>-</i>∅, which are used whenever the speaker has the best possible grounds for some proposition. I make the novel observation that a sentence with <i>=wa</i> can be felicitously uttered if the speaker attempts to update the common ground by addressing an issue on the table. In fact, the sentence with <i>=wa</i> that is uttered must be congruent with prior discourse; I tie this to the claim that <i>=wa</i> is a (presentational) focus marker (Proulx in Language Sciences 9(1):91–102, 1987). This paper thus claims that <i>=wa</i> is a marker that combines evidentiality and focus. In contrast, uttering a sentence with <i>-</i>∅ entails that the speaker’s contribution is already in the common ground, which likens this evidential to common ground management operators—there is no congruence requirement in this case. I identify which construction can be used in different discourse settings (conversation openers and telling anecdotes). I implement a formal analysis based on Farkas and Bruce (Journal of Semantics 27:81–118, 2010) and Faller (Semantics and Pragmatics 12(8):1–53, 2019) that links evidentiality and discourse.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Natural Language Semantics\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Natural Language Semantics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-023-09220-1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-023-09220-1","RegionNum":1,"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
摘要
本文讨论了南艾马拉语(以下简称艾马拉语)中与直接证据性有关的话语对比,艾马拉语是一种未被充分研究的安第斯语言。艾马拉语有两个直接证据性,即外显词 =wa 和隐性词素 -∅,当说话者有最好的理由支持某个命题时,就会使用这两个直接证据性。我提出了一个新颖的观点,即如果说话者试图通过解决桌面上的一个问题来更新共同点,那么带有 =wa 的句子就能被恰当地表达出来。事实上,带有 =wa 的句子必须与先前的话语一致;我将这一点与 =wa 是(陈述性)焦点标记的说法联系起来(Proulx in Language Sciences 9(1):91-102,1987)。因此,本文认为 =wa 是一个结合了证据性和焦点性的标记。与此相反,用-∅说出一个句子就意味着说话人的贡献已经在共同语中,这就把这种证据性与共同语管理运算符相提并论--在这种情况下没有同位要求。我确定了哪种结构可用于不同的话语环境(对话开场白和讲述轶事)。我根据 Farkas 和 Bruce(《语义学杂志》27:81-118,2010 年)以及 Faller(《语义学与语用学》12(8):1-53,2019 年)的观点进行了形式分析,将证据性与话语联系起来。
Direct evidentiality and discourse in Southern Aymara
This paper discusses the discourse contrasts that arise in connection to direct evidentiality in Southern Aymara (henceforth, Aymara), an understudied Andean language. Aymara has two direct evidentials, the enclitic =wa and the covert morpheme -∅, which are used whenever the speaker has the best possible grounds for some proposition. I make the novel observation that a sentence with =wa can be felicitously uttered if the speaker attempts to update the common ground by addressing an issue on the table. In fact, the sentence with =wa that is uttered must be congruent with prior discourse; I tie this to the claim that =wa is a (presentational) focus marker (Proulx in Language Sciences 9(1):91–102, 1987). This paper thus claims that =wa is a marker that combines evidentiality and focus. In contrast, uttering a sentence with -∅ entails that the speaker’s contribution is already in the common ground, which likens this evidential to common ground management operators—there is no congruence requirement in this case. I identify which construction can be used in different discourse settings (conversation openers and telling anecdotes). I implement a formal analysis based on Farkas and Bruce (Journal of Semantics 27:81–118, 2010) and Faller (Semantics and Pragmatics 12(8):1–53, 2019) that links evidentiality and discourse.
期刊介绍:
Natural Language Semantics is devoted to semantics and its interfaces in grammar, especially syntax. The journal seeks to encourage the convergence of approaches employing the concepts of logic and philosophy with perspectives of generative grammar on the relations between meaning and structure. Natural Language Semantics publishes studies focused on linguistic phenomena as opposed to those dealing primarily with the field''s methodological and formal foundations. Representative topics include, but are not limited to, quantification, negation, modality, genericity, tense, aspect, aktionsarten, focus, presuppositions, anaphora, definiteness, plurals, mass nouns, adjectives, adverbial modification, nominalization, ellipsis, and interrogatives. The journal features mainly research articles, but also short squibs as well as remarks on and replies to pertinent books and articles.The journal has an Editorial Assistant, Christine Bartels, a copy editor with a PhD in linguistics who personally shepherds accepted manuscripts through the production process.Since 2009 this journal is covered by ISI/Social Sciences Citation Index.Springer fully understands that access to your work is important to you and to the sponsors of your research. We are listed as a green publisher in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, as we allow self-archiving, but most importantly we are fully transparent about your rights. Read more about author''s rights on: http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights