Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne

Recent research on evidentials has led to formally explicit semantic analyses of various languages, including Cuzco Quecha [2, 3], St’át’imcets [5], Kalaallisut [1], and Japanese [6]. Interaction with questions and other diagnostics distinguish illocutionary evidentials from propositional evidential...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Other Authors: The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
Format: Text
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5442
http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sem/Evidentials-and-Questions-in-Cheyenne_abstract.pdf
id ftciteseerx:oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.405.5442
record_format openpolar
spelling ftciteseerx:oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.405.5442 2023-05-15T16:58:07+02:00 Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives application/pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5442 http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sem/Evidentials-and-Questions-in-Cheyenne_abstract.pdf en eng http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5442 http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sem/Evidentials-and-Questions-in-Cheyenne_abstract.pdf Metadata may be used without restrictions as long as the oai identifier remains attached to it. http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sem/Evidentials-and-Questions-in-Cheyenne_abstract.pdf text ftciteseerx 2016-01-08T03:02:00Z Recent research on evidentials has led to formally explicit semantic analyses of various languages, including Cuzco Quecha [2, 3], St’át’imcets [5], Kalaallisut [1], and Japanese [6]. Interaction with questions and other diagnostics distinguish illocutionary evidentials from propositional evidentials. Roughly speaking, illocutionary evidentials (found e.g. in Cuzco Quechua [2, 3] and Kalaallisut [1]) are interpreted like English parentheticals, whereas propositional evidentials (found e.g. in St’át’imcets [5] and German [3]) are more like modals. My fieldwork on Cheyenne (15 weeks over three field trips) reveals a more complex semantic typology. Cheyenne evidentials behave like illocutionary evidentials in declaratives, but not in questions, where they can shift the illocutionary force. Building on [4], I propose a semantic analysis of Cheyenne evidentials in declaratives and questions that satisfies three desiderata: (i) it is fully compositional (like [4]); (ii) it distinguishes the evidential and the propositional contributions without positing a separate level of illocutionary meaning (contra [2]), and (iii) it accounts for the intuition that both contributions affect the truth conditions (contra [2]). Cheyenne Data: Crosslinguistically, illocutionary reportatives do not imply that the proposition in their scope is true, false, or even possible ([2], [3], [1], a.o.). In contrast, propositional reportatives imply that it is at least an open possibility [5]. Cheyenne exhibits the illocutionary pattern, shown in (1). However, as shown in (2), illocutionary reportatives do imply that the speaker has heard the proposition in their scope (both diagnostic examples are based on [2]). (1) É-háéána-s˙estse 3-hungry-rpt.3sg naa+oha but é-sáa-háéána-he-∅ Text kalaallisut Unknown
institution Open Polar
collection Unknown
op_collection_id ftciteseerx
language English
description Recent research on evidentials has led to formally explicit semantic analyses of various languages, including Cuzco Quecha [2, 3], St’át’imcets [5], Kalaallisut [1], and Japanese [6]. Interaction with questions and other diagnostics distinguish illocutionary evidentials from propositional evidentials. Roughly speaking, illocutionary evidentials (found e.g. in Cuzco Quechua [2, 3] and Kalaallisut [1]) are interpreted like English parentheticals, whereas propositional evidentials (found e.g. in St’át’imcets [5] and German [3]) are more like modals. My fieldwork on Cheyenne (15 weeks over three field trips) reveals a more complex semantic typology. Cheyenne evidentials behave like illocutionary evidentials in declaratives, but not in questions, where they can shift the illocutionary force. Building on [4], I propose a semantic analysis of Cheyenne evidentials in declaratives and questions that satisfies three desiderata: (i) it is fully compositional (like [4]); (ii) it distinguishes the evidential and the propositional contributions without positing a separate level of illocutionary meaning (contra [2]), and (iii) it accounts for the intuition that both contributions affect the truth conditions (contra [2]). Cheyenne Data: Crosslinguistically, illocutionary reportatives do not imply that the proposition in their scope is true, false, or even possible ([2], [3], [1], a.o.). In contrast, propositional reportatives imply that it is at least an open possibility [5]. Cheyenne exhibits the illocutionary pattern, shown in (1). However, as shown in (2), illocutionary reportatives do imply that the speaker has heard the proposition in their scope (both diagnostic examples are based on [2]). (1) É-háéána-s˙estse 3-hungry-rpt.3sg naa+oha but é-sáa-háéána-he-∅
author2 The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
format Text
title Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne
spellingShingle Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne
title_short Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne
title_full Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne
title_fullStr Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne
title_full_unstemmed Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne
title_sort evidentials and questions in cheyenne
url http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5442
http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sem/Evidentials-and-Questions-in-Cheyenne_abstract.pdf
genre kalaallisut
genre_facet kalaallisut
op_source http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sem/Evidentials-and-Questions-in-Cheyenne_abstract.pdf
op_relation http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5442
http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sem/Evidentials-and-Questions-in-Cheyenne_abstract.pdf
op_rights Metadata may be used without restrictions as long as the oai identifier remains attached to it.
_version_ 1766049914514571264