{"title":"推测性疑问句:德语动词词尾wohl疑问句","authors":"R. Eckardt","doi":"10.3765/sp.13.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyzes German verb-final questions with the particle wohl , which roughly translate as ‘ Q, I wonder? ’. It construes German as an instance of a general typological pattern: Conjectural questions (CQs) are marked by evidentials in many languages, and German wohl is an inferential evidential. The analysis proceeds in three steps. First, wohl is shown to pattern with inferential evidentials in other languages. Declarative wohl p asserts p and conveys ‘the speaker defeasibly infers p from secure knowledge’ as non-at-issue content. Second, the analysis is extended to standard wohl Q questions, accounting for the interrogative flip. Third, the analysis integrates conjectural verb-final wohl questions. I propose that CQs ask for answers that are defeasibly entailed by the pooled knowledge of speaker and addressee. Due to the logic of defeasible inference, the addressee is not in a position to answer the CQ unless both interlocutors have pooled their knowledge. In normal utterance contexts, these questions are thus un-answerable. We see two conventionalized reactions: the interlocutors engage in speculative discourse, or the CQ is understood as a statement of curiosity that doesn’t require a response. \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conjectural questions: The case of German verb-final wohl questions\",\"authors\":\"R. Eckardt\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/sp.13.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper analyzes German verb-final questions with the particle wohl , which roughly translate as ‘ Q, I wonder? ’. It construes German as an instance of a general typological pattern: Conjectural questions (CQs) are marked by evidentials in many languages, and German wohl is an inferential evidential. The analysis proceeds in three steps. First, wohl is shown to pattern with inferential evidentials in other languages. Declarative wohl p asserts p and conveys ‘the speaker defeasibly infers p from secure knowledge’ as non-at-issue content. Second, the analysis is extended to standard wohl Q questions, accounting for the interrogative flip. Third, the analysis integrates conjectural verb-final wohl questions. I propose that CQs ask for answers that are defeasibly entailed by the pooled knowledge of speaker and addressee. Due to the logic of defeasible inference, the addressee is not in a position to answer the CQ unless both interlocutors have pooled their knowledge. In normal utterance contexts, these questions are thus un-answerable. We see two conventionalized reactions: the interlocutors engage in speculative discourse, or the CQ is understood as a statement of curiosity that doesn’t require a response. \\n \\nEARLY ACCESS\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.9\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
摘要
本文分析了带有wohl助词的德语动词末疑问句,wohl大致可译为“Q, I wonder?””。它将德语解释为一般类型模式的一个实例:在许多语言中,推测性问题(cq)都有证据标记,德语是一个推理证据。分析分三步进行。首先,它与其他语言中的推理证据相吻合。陈述性wohl断言p,并将“说话者从安全知识中可论证地推断p”作为非争议内容传达。其次,将分析扩展到标准的wohl Q问题,考虑到疑问句的翻转。第三,结合猜测式动末问句进行分析。我建议cq要求的答案是由说话者和被说话者的知识集合而成的。由于可否定推理的逻辑,除非对话双方汇集了他们的知识,否则受话者无法回答CQ。在正常的话语语境中,这些问题是无法回答的。我们看到两种约定俗成的反应:对话者参与推测性话语,或者CQ被理解为一种不需要回应的好奇心陈述。早期访问
Conjectural questions: The case of German verb-final wohl questions
The paper analyzes German verb-final questions with the particle wohl , which roughly translate as ‘ Q, I wonder? ’. It construes German as an instance of a general typological pattern: Conjectural questions (CQs) are marked by evidentials in many languages, and German wohl is an inferential evidential. The analysis proceeds in three steps. First, wohl is shown to pattern with inferential evidentials in other languages. Declarative wohl p asserts p and conveys ‘the speaker defeasibly infers p from secure knowledge’ as non-at-issue content. Second, the analysis is extended to standard wohl Q questions, accounting for the interrogative flip. Third, the analysis integrates conjectural verb-final wohl questions. I propose that CQs ask for answers that are defeasibly entailed by the pooled knowledge of speaker and addressee. Due to the logic of defeasible inference, the addressee is not in a position to answer the CQ unless both interlocutors have pooled their knowledge. In normal utterance contexts, these questions are thus un-answerable. We see two conventionalized reactions: the interlocutors engage in speculative discourse, or the CQ is understood as a statement of curiosity that doesn’t require a response.
EARLY ACCESS
期刊介绍:
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.