Switch to: References

Citations of:

Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne

In Suzi Lima (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 5: Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas (2009). GLSA Publications. pp. 139--155 (2010)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts.Sarah E. Murray - 2010 - Dissertation, Rutgers University
    Many languages grammatically mark evidentiality, i.e., the source of information. In assertions, evidentials indicate the source of information of the speaker while in questions they indicate the expected source of information of the addressee. This dissertation examines the semantics and pragmatics of evidentiality and illocutionary mood, set within formal theories of meaning and discourse. The empirical focus is the evidential system of Cheyenne (Algonquian: Montana), which is analyzed based on several years of fieldwork by the author.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • A Preference Semantics for Imperatives.William B. Starr - 2020 - Semantics and Pragmatics 20.
    Imperative sentences like Dance! do not seem to represent the world. Recent modal analyses challenge this idea, but its intuitive and historical appeal remain strong. This paper presents three new challenges for a non-representational analysis, showing that the obstacles facing it are even steeper than previously appreciated. I will argue that the only way for the non-representationalist to meet these three challenges is to adopt a dynamic semantics. Such a dynamic semantics is proposed here: imperatives introduce preferences between alternatives. This (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   40 citations  
  • A Hamblin Semantics for Evidentials.Sarah E. Murray - 2011 - In Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings From Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XIX (2009). CLC Publications. pp. 324--341.
    In this paper, I propose that the distinction between what is at-issue and what is not can be modeled as a distinction between two components of assertion. These two components affect the common ground in different ways. The at-issue component of an assertion, which is negotiable, is treated as a proposal to update the common ground. The not-at-issue component of an assertion, which is not negotiable, is added directly to the common ground. Evidence for this proposal comes from evidentials, which (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations