semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in cuzco quechua

More documents

Recommendations

Info

220 CHAPTER 6. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS In summary, the results of the above discussed tests are that m-performativity is excluded from conditional antecedents and the complements of attitude verbs and verbs of saying. Why should that be? It appears that the reason is that m-performative expressions can only occur in illocutionary force bearing environments. Even though mperformativity is different from speech act performativity in that only the latter requires a verbal act (see quote from Nuyts above), it is nevertheless reasonable to assume that m-performativity shares its distributional restrictions with speech act performativity, since they both require anchoring to the speaker, thatis,bothmake reference to the speaker’s mental attitudes. 20,21 I propose (181) as a preliminary conclusion regarding the occurrence restriction on m-performative elements. (181) M-performative expressions can only occur in illocutionary force bearing environments. 20 Haegeman (2002) uses the notion anchoring to speaker to account for the difference in interpretation of two types of conditionals, exemplified in (i) and (ii), and other types of adverbial clauses. i. If it rains we will all get terribly wet and miserable. ii. If [as you say] it is going to rain this afternoon, why don’t we just stay at home and watch a video? According to Haegeman (2002), “[T]he conditional clause in [(i)] modifies the event expressed in the matrix clause in that it specifies its cause. The conditional in [(ii)] modifies the discourse links of the associated clause in that it expresses a premise that leads to the question being raised in the associated clause.” She analyzes this interpretational difference as a structural difference, which results in only the so-called premise conditionals being anchored to the speaker. Anchoring to the speaker here is not equivalent to the proposition embedded under if being used m-performatively—if that were the case, it would have to be the speaker’s evaluation that it will rain in the afternoon in (ii), but clearly, it is not. What m-performative expressions, speech act performatives, and premiseconditionals have in common is that all reference the mental attitudes of the speaker. 21 Note that the anchoring of linguistic expressions to the mental attitudes of the speaker is quite different from referential deixis to the speaker by first person pronouns. The latter can of course freely occur as part of the propositional content. This suggests that we need a level of semantic representation higher than the propositional level, at which the speaker’s mental attitudes are represented. At this point, the only level that allows for this is the level of sincerity conditions within speech act theory. Further research is needed to determine whether this is the right level for housing the speaker’s mental attitudes. As Nuyts (2000) observes in the above quote, a verbal act is required to perform an illocutionary act, that is, an utterance is constitutive of the illocutionary act performed. The same is not true for the speaker’s mental attitudes, including the ones traditionally represented as sincerity conditions: an utterance of a sentence containing p is not constitutive of the speaker’s belief that p.
6.2. PERFORMATIVITY 221 Note that all performatives are also m-performative, but not vice versa, since not all m-performatives determine an illocutionary force. 6.2.3 M-performativity of Quechua evidentials I will now apply the tests to the Cuzco Quechua evidentials. As shown in (182) none of the evidential enclitics can occur in the antecedent of a conditional. 22 (182) (Sichus) Pidru-cha ña iskay t’anta-ta-ña-(*n/*-s/*-chá) (if) Pedro-dim already two roll-acc-disc-mi/-si/-chá mikhu-rqa-n chayqa ama huq-ta qu-y-chu eat-pst1-3 then not-dir other-acc give-imp (intended) ‘If Pedro already ate two rolls, don’t give him another one.’ If we apply the arguments above, we cannot conclude from the empirical facts exemplified in (182) that the Quechua evidential enclitics do not contribute to the truth conditions of the main proposition. That this is not the right conclusion is particularly clear for the Conjectural -chá which has been argued in section 5.2 to contribute the epistemic modal operator ¦ to the proposition expressed. However, we can conclude from (182) that evidential enclitics cannot be used descriptively. Secondly, none of the evidential enclitics can scope under a verb of saying. 22 Conditionals in Quechua can be formed in several ways. The example in (182) contains the particle sichus, which appears to be composed of Spanish si and the enclitic -chus, which has been discussed earlier (footnote 2, chapter 5). This particle is optional. The second, and main element indicating that this is a conditional is chayqa—then (composed of the demonstrative chay—this and the topic marker -qa), which syntactically still belongs to the antecedent (as shown among other things by the intonation break immediately following chayqa). The two clauses conjoined by chayqa are both finite. A second way of forming conditionals is by means of the nominalizer -qti, asshown in i.. i. Pidru-cha ña iskay t’anta-ta-ña-(*n/*-s/*-chá) mikhu-qti-n ama huq-ta Pedro-dim already two qu-y-chu give-imp-neg roll-acc-disc-mi/-si/-chá eat-seq-3 not-dir other-acc (intended) ‘If Pedro already ate two rolls, don’t give him another one.’ Evidential enclitics cannot occur within nominalized clauses in general, not only in ones with a conditional interpretation. The conditional exemplified in (182) is therefore more pertinent to the current discussion than that in (i).
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:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?