semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in cuzco quechua

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to or modify the sincerity conditions of the act they apply to. The resulting act is assertion of the proposition expressed p for the Direct, and assertion of ¦p for the Conjectural. For sentences with the Reportative, I propose a new illocutionary act: “presentation” of p. This analysis accounts for the afore-mentioned as well as other properties of these evidentials. vi
Acknowledgements Many people have accompanied me during this adventure and provided me with their support. My first thanks go to my committee: David Beaver as my principal advisor, Elizabeth Traugott, Peter Sells, and Cleo Condoravdi. It has been a great pleasure discussing my ideas with them, and receiving their encouragement and excellent advice at every step of the way, often long-distance, and always promptly and right on the point. David Beaver joined the Stanford linguistics faculty shortly before I decided on my dissertation topic and he has been a part of it since the very beginning. I have had the privilege of being the first student whose committee he chaired at Stanford, and have benefited enormously from his unending enthusiasm and the apparently interminable amount of time he was willing to spend with me discussing Quechua evidentials, the difficulties and joys of doing linguistics, and life—not to mention his linguistic expertise and sharp mind. I consider him my friend and a role model for how to combine an exacting academic career with leading a fulfilling (family) life. Elizabeth Traugott has not been an official co-advisor, but she has certainly been acting like one, and I am very grateful to her for that. I would like to thank her for sharing her linguistic wisdom with me, both on very specific topics, as well as their relation to the big picture, which she always made sure was never far out of my sight, and for teaching me a lot about linguistic argumentation, as well as presentation. I would like to thank Peter Sells for pushing me just that bit further when I needed it, for his request to come to a decision when I was stuck in choosing an approach because I would always see the “other” side, his attention to detail, and his excellent advice on administrative matters during my entire stay at Stanford. vii
Page 1 and 2: SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS OF EVIDENT
Page 3: I certify that I have read this dis
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 56 and 57:
38 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND MAIN
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 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
206 CHAPTER 6. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
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?