semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in cuzco quechua

More documents

Recommendations

Info

210 CHAPTER 6. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS It is not clear to me how this analysis carries over to the Reportative interpretation of the Tibetan indirect. 6 The Quechua evidential enclitics are clearly not like performative verbs. First, none of the three enclitics is the main predication of the sentence; they can therefore not be said to correspond to a performative verb such as infer. Second, a sentence containing an evidential enclitic is not automatically true simply by having been uttered. This is a direct consequence of the evidentials not being part of the proposition expressed. It is also not the case that the proposition that I analyze as a sincerity condition introduced by the evidentials is automatically true—at least not for the Direct -mi and the Reportative -si. That is, uttering Parashan-mi/-si (It is rainingmi/-si) does not make it true that the speaker sees or was told that it is raining. 7 One could object that the relevant question is not whether or not the utterance of a sentence containing an evidential enclitic makes the evidential claim true, but whether or not uttering such a sentence is the only way of asserting it. This is certainly the case. In order to assert any sentence, it has to be uttered. However, we cannot conclude from that that the evidential enclitics are marking the speech act as an assertion for two reasons: (i) sentences without an evidential enclitic can be assertions (see section 4.4), 8 and (ii) they can occur in content questions. That is, the evidential enclitics are not constitutive of the speech act performed by the utterance of a sentence they occur in. Having established that Quechua evidential enclitics are not like performative verbs, I now return to the observation that they cannot occur in environments that do not carry illocutionary force such as the antecedents of conditionals. Since I cannot 6 In the previous chapter, section 5.3, I hypothesized that—if the analysis of the Tibetan indirect as an epistemic modal is correct—the reportative interpretation of the indirect arises from the context rather than being encoded by the indirect morpheme. If that turned out to be right, then the performativity of this morpheme would not carry over to the reportative meaning aspect, but only to the epistemic meaning. 7 For the Conjectural -chá the case is not so clear. If one accepts that according to standard analysis uttering I infer (that) p constitutes a speech act of inferring, then an utterance of p-chá might be argued to constitute an act of conjecturing (but see footnote 5). 8 By itself this is a very weak argument, since the use of performative verbs is also not necessary for performing a speech act. For example, in uttering I went swimming I assert that I went swimming without using the performative verb assert. Nevertheless, assert is a performative verb.
6.2. PERFORMATIVITY 211 use Garrett’s explanation for this restriction in Tibetan, I must provide a different account. In the following section I argue that the distributional restrictions on the evidentials follows from a different, but closely related kind of performativity. 6.2.2 M-performativity Nuyts (2000:39) uses the terms descriptive and performative to describe different uses of modal expressions, and he defines them as follows. “Expressions which report on an epistemic qualification of a state of affairs without involving speaker commitment to it at the moment of speaking, [ ... ], will be called ‘descriptive’. Epistemic forms which express the speaker’s current attitude towards the state of affairs, [ ... ], will be called ‘performative’.” This distinction “can also be found at least in the domains of deontic modality, evidentiality, and emotional attitude” (Nuyts 2000:40). In other words ‘performative’ forms are anchored to the speech event. 9 Nuytsiscarefulto distinguish this use of the term performative from that used in speech act theory as discussed in the previous section: The present notion of performativity should also not be confused with that in speech act theory. There is a clear correspondence between the two: both involve a phenomenon in which something is performed here and now and this performance is expressed by means of some lexical element. But there is a clear difference in what is performed: a verbal act toward the listener, versus a mental act of evaluation of a state of affairs. The former only exists by virtue of the utterance: it is through the utterance that the speech act is performed. The latter, however, can exist without the verbal expression: the verbal act only expresses the mental act, without being constitutive of it. One can perform the act of (conceptually) evaluating something without expressing it (Nuyts 2000:40-1). In order to distinguish Nuyts’ notion of performative from the standard speech act theoretic notion, I will call it m-performative based on his characterization of it being 9 I say that they are anchored to the speech event, and not simply to a speech act participant, because they express the speaker’s (or the hearer’s) current attitude, not a past or future one (see examples in (170) below).
Page 1 and 2:
SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS OF EVIDENT
Page 3:
I certify that I have read this dis
Page 6 and 7:
to or modify the sincerity conditio
Page 8 and 9:
I thank Cleo Condoravdi for accepti
Page 10 and 11:
thank Cathryn and Shiao-Wei for pro
Page 12 and 13:
in fact lost the phoneme represente
Page 14 and 15:
-ru/-ra (v) hort hortative -man (n)
Page 16 and 17:
2 Evidential Hierarchies 39 2.1 Int
Page 18 and 19:
6 Further Implications 205 6.1 Intr
Page 20 and 21:
2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND MAIN
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
40 CHAPTER 2. EVIDENTIAL HIERARCHIE
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
80 CHAPTER 3. EVIDENTIALITY AND EPI
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
100 CHAPTER 3. EVIDENTIALITY AND EP
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
122 CHAPTER 4. BEST POSSIBLE GROUND
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179: 160 CHAPTER 4. BEST POSSIBLE GROUND
Page 188 and 189: Chapter 5 Indirect evidentiality 5.
Page 190 and 191: 172 CHAPTER 5. INDIRECT EVIDENTIALI
Page 224 and 225: 206 CHAPTER 6. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS
Page 278 and 279:
260 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION three mai
Page 280 and 281:
262 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION is judgin
Page 282 and 283:
264 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION This anal
Page 284 and 285:
266 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION than in Q
Page 286 and 287:
268 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION c. Wayna-
Page 288 and 289:
270 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION discussio
Page 290 and 291:
272 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION represent
Page 292 and 293:
274 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION Thus, the
Page 294 and 295:
276 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION framework
Page 296 and 297:
278 BIBLIOGRAPHY Belnap, Nuel D., a
Page 298 and 299:
280 BIBLIOGRAPHY M. Reis (Eds.), Mo
Page 300 and 301:
282 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ifantidou, Elly. 2
Page 302 and 303:
284 BIBLIOGRAPHY Nuckolls, Janis B.
Page 304:
286 BIBLIOGRAPHY Weber, David. 1986
show all

semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in cuzco quechua

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?