Grammatical evidentiality Modal Evidentials in Questions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Introduction Introduction A Typology of Questions A Typology of Questions The Issues An Analysis of Conjectural Questions An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan Expanding coverage and predictions Expanding coverage and predictions Grammatical evidentiality Modal Evidentials in Questions ▶ Grammatical evidentiality is the encoding the expression of knowledge, or the source, of information one has for a proposition (e.g., Anderson 1986; Aikhenvald 2004; Willet 1988; San Roque et al 2013; a.o.) Tyler Peterson email: t.peterson@auckland.ac.nz (1) Context: Bob and Roy are fishing. Bob is cutting up bait; he web: peterson.ac.nz/qsa.pdf notices blood on the rocks at Roys’s feet. Bob says to Roy: University of Auckland kots-i-n= ima =hl ’on’-n cut- tr -2sg= mod = cnd hand-2sg September 21, 2017 “You might ’ve cut your hand.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Introduction Introduction A Typology of Questions The Issues A Typology of Questions The Issues An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan Expanding coverage and predictions Expanding coverage and predictions Grammatical evidentiality Grammatical evidentiality ▶ Grammatical evidentiality is the encoding the expression of knowledge, ▶ Grammatical evidentials are a cross-linguistically a very diverse or the source, of information one has for a proposition (e.g., Anderson phenomenon; some things we know about them: 1986; Aikhenvald 2004; Willet 1988; San Roque et al 2013; a.o.) ▶ Grammatical evidential are paradigmatic ▶ In some languages they are a special kind of epistemic modal (2) Context: Later that day Bob mentions the hand-cutting incident to ▶ In other languages they are ‘something else’: evidential meanings are Gwen; she meets Bob later that day and mentions out of concern: non-propositional ▶ Some languages have both kinds ▶ They are information-giving utterances (which may be kots-i-n= kat =hl ’on’-n declaratives/assertions or other kinds of ‘ presenting ’ speech acts) cut- tr -2sg= rep = cnd hand-2sg ⋆ They are not restricted to declarative utterances “[I heard] You cut your hand.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions

Introduction Introduction A Typology of Questions The Issues A Typology of Questions The Issues An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan Expanding coverage and predictions Expanding coverage and predictions Questions/Interrogatives Ordinary and Conjectural Statements ▶ In Gitksan, the insertion of the modal evidential = ima into a sentence – an Ordinary Statement – creates a modalized utterance, translated by speakers using the modals might or must – a Conjectural Statement : ▶ A ‘major’ clause type, which can be identified by a specific kind of structure using specific elements (i.e. wh-words) (3) a. Ordinary Statement ▶ They are information-seeking utterances stin=hl xbiist tust be.heavy= cnd box ⋆ They can contain grammatical evidentials (cf. San Roque et al dem 2013) “That box is heavy.” b. Conjectural Statement stin = ima =hl xbiist tust be.heavy= mod = cnd box dem “That box might/must be heavy.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Introduction Introduction A Typology of Questions The Issues A Typology of Questions The Issues An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan Expanding coverage and predictions Expanding coverage and predictions Ordinary and Conjectural Questions Are CQ utterances questions... or something else? ▶ The insertion of the modal evidential = ima into an Ordinary Question creates a non-interrogative utterance, translated by speakers using ‘I wonder....’, or a Conjectural Question : ▶ Towards an assessment: three different but interrelated notions of question (Higginbotham 1996): (4) a. Ordinary Question ▶ Syntactic: An instance of a certain sort of linguistic structure. ▶ Semantic: An utterance with a certain type of denotation. ki ’ ’an-t nam-(t)=hl xbiist ’as John naa ▶ Pragmatic: A specific sort of speech act. s.rel -3 give-3= cnd box John who obl “Who gave the box to John?” ▶ Conjectural Questions in Gitksan are syntactically and semantically b. Conjectural Question Ordinary Questions, but that pragmatically they see to do something ki ’ else... ’an-t nam-(t)=hl xbiist ’as John naa= ima s.rel -3 give-3= cnd box John who= mod obl “I wonder who gave the box to John.” ̸ = Who might’ve given the box to John? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions

Introduction Introduction A Typology of Questions The Issues A Typology of Questions The Issues An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan Expanding coverage and predictions Expanding coverage and predictions How do we analyze Conjectural Questions? Why is this interesting and/or important? ▶ Ideally, we want to derive the meaning of Conjectural Questions using What we know cross-linguistically: Modal are propositional and only the independently-needed semantics for the elements contained can thus be inserted into other clause types within Conjectural Questions Therefore: Evidentials-as-modals must also be able to be inserted ▶ Thus, an analysis of Conjectural Questions follows from into other clause types independently-needed Research question: What affect do evidentials-as-modals have in 1. Semantics of the evidential modal = ima other clause types? 2. Semantics of questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Introduction Introduction A Typology based on Speaker knowledge/belief A Typology of Questions The Issues A Typology of Questions CQs are syntactically questions An Analysis of Conjectural Questions The Plan An Analysis of Conjectural Questions CQs are semantically questions Expanding coverage and predictions Expanding coverage and predictions CQs are not pragmatically questions The Plan The pragmatics of Ordinary Questions (OQ) 1. Examine the meaning of the modal evidential = ima (5) ‘John looks like an interesting syntactician.’ 2. The semantics of questions OQ: ‘What does he know about semantics?’ [ Possible answers: He knows a lot about semantics ; He doesn’t 3. Put the pieces together: know a lot about semantics ; etc. ] ▶ The empirical tests ▶ Following predictions of a typology ▶ Following predictions of the theory ▶ Ordinary Questions 1. are a request by the speaker for information from the addressee 4. Conjectural Questions cross-linguistically and their link to evidentiality 2. are an interrogative clause whose answer is not known to the Speaker, 5. Maybe it’s something else? but the Speaker thinks the Addressee may know it 6. Further predictions: Extended Interrogatives 3. require an answer in order for the dialogue to be felicitous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions Tyler Peterson Modal Evidentials in Questions