chapter 2 stance adverbs qualifying a standpoint - LOT publications

More documents

Recommendations

Info

58 CHAPTER 2 A: Clearly, Paul lost the election. B: ?You are not right / That is not true, I think this is not so clear. A: Perhaps, Paul lost the election. B: ?You are not right / That is not true, I think this is not so probable. In the above constructed dialogues, B‟s expression of disagreement cannot be taken to concern the epistemic adverb alone. In the case of clearly, B‟s reaction is understood as concerning the proposition „John lost the election‟. It could stand as a reaction expressing disagreement even if clearly were missing from A‟s utterance. The same observations apply in the case of perhaps. Furthermore, in utterances with an epistemic/modal adverb the hearer cannot concede to the truth of the embedded proposition and at the same time disagree with the choice of the adverb, as the following examples show: A: Clearly, John lost the elections. B: *That is true [= that John lost the elections] but it is not clear. A: Probably, John lost the elections. B: *That is true [= that John lost the elections] but it is not probable. It is this latter feature that presumably makes scholars like Jayez and Rossari (2004) argue that the hearer‟s assenting or dissenting reaction includes the modal adverb. But even with this interpretation, the examples above would still be unacceptable since language user B would appear contradicting himself as the following examples illustrate: A: Clearly, John lost the elections. B: *That is true [= that it is clear that John lost the elections] but it is not clear. A: Probably, John lost the elections. B: *That is true [= that is it probable that John lost the elections] but it is not probable. The above utterances may be used, as Jayez and Rossari make use of them, in order to illustrate in semantic terms that modal adverbs are part of the truthevaluable propositional content of the utterance and to contrast them to evaluative adverbs. 40 However, in pragmatic terms the implications of the assent or dissent of the hearer cannot be interpreted as endorsing /challenging the modal, contrary to Jayez and Rossari‟s interpretation. 40 Contrary to Jayez and Rossari (2004), Papafragou (2006, p. 1697) concludes that the assent/dissent test “does not constitute evidence for the truth-conditional nature of (subjective) epistemic modality”. A similar observation is made by Nuyts (1993). Interestingly, Papafragou,
STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING A STANDPOINT 59 unacceptability of the above utterances and their comparison to those containing evaluative adverbs and illocutionary adverbs (see the discussion in 2.3.2.2 and 2.3.3.2, respectively) concern the way a dialogue may proceed, the options that are available for the other party and the way the speaker may anticipate them. Domain adverbs such as architecturally, linguistically, politically, technically, and theoretically can also be treated as a way to qualify an utterance by adding a comment conveying commitment to the propositional content. By specifying a field within which the proposition expressed in the sentence holds as true according to the speaker, these adverbs signal that the degree of probability that the embedded proposition is true is the highest, upon condition that the field remains the same, while they indicate that the degree is low or unknown in case the field shifts. Nevertheless, domain adverbs have some interesting pragmatic and semantic properties that relate them to modal adverbs and others that differentiate them from the latter. Like modal adverbs, domain adverbs affect the truth conditions of the utterance. Similarly, the hearer cannot react to an utterance qualified by a domain adverb making a distinction between agreement regarding the embedded proposition and disagreement regarding the choice of that adverb. A: Technically, Clark Kent is Superman. B: *That is true [= that technically Clark Kent is Superman], but it is not technically that he is. However, as Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 766) observe, domain adverbs unlike modal ones can be the informational focus in alternative questions, contrastive negation or in it-clefts as the following constructed examples illustrate: Are valves the best way to amplify a guitar technically or practically? Valves are the best way to amplify a guitar technically but not practically. It is technically that valves are the best way to amplify a guitar. *Are valves the best way to amplify a guitar clearly or perhaps? *Valves are the best way to amplify a guitar perhaps but not clearly. *It is clearly that valves are the best way to amplify a guitar. The hearer can thus concede to an utterance qualified by a domain adverb and then indicate another domain, in which the embedded proposition does not hold, without being inconsistent, something which is not possible with modal adverbs: contrary to Nuyts, argues in favour of the truth-conditional nature of modals but does not take the so-called assent/dissent test to be a proof for her claim, and rightly so.
Page 1 and 2: CHAPTER 2 STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING
Page 3 and 4: STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING A STANDPO
Page 15: STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING A STANDPO
Page 35: STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING A STANDPO

chapter 2 stance adverbs qualifying a standpoint - LOT publications

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?