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

Authors
Sarah E. Murray
Cornell University
Abstract
On one view, the point of an assertion is to update the common ground (Stalnaker 1978, Karttunen 1974). On another, the point of an assertion is to propose an update to the com- mon ground (Groenendijk 2009, Mascarenhas 2009, and related work on the structure of discourse, e.g., Ginzburg 1996, Roberts 1996, Gunlogson 2001). In Murray (to appear), I merge these two views. I argue based on evidence from declarative sentences with eviden- tials that assertion has two components: what is at-issue and what is not. The not-at-issue component of assertion is added directly to the common ground while the at-issue compo- nent is proposed to be added to the common ground. Here, I extend this analysis to yes/no questions in Cheyenne and their interaction with evidentials. I propose that the distinction between what is at-issue and what is not is also present in questions, and that it can be modeled in the same way. Specifically, both declarative and interrogative sentences make two contributions: they restrict and structure the common ground. The restriction is based on the not-at-issue component while the structuring relation is based on the at-issue component.
Keywords Evidentiality   Questions   Update   Cheyenne   Illocutionary Mood
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,160
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Foundations of Language 13 (1):145-151.
Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Philosophy of Science 42 (3):341-344.
Assertion.Robert C. Stalnaker - 1978 - In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Broadview Press. pp. 179.
Common Ground.Robert C. Stalnaker - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):701-721.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

A Preference Semantics for Imperatives.William B. Starr - 2020 - Semantics and Pragmatics 20.
Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts.Sarah E. Murray - 2010 - Dissertation, Rutgers University
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.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Temporal Constraints on the Meaning of Evidentiality.Jungmee Lee - 2013 - Natural Language Semantics 21 (1):1-41.
Northern Cheyenne Ethnopsychology.Anne S. Straus - 1977 - Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology 5 (3):326-357.
Mood and the Analysis of Non-Declarative Sentences.Deirdre Wilson & Dan Sperber - 1988 - In J. Dancy, J. M. E. Moravcsik & C. C. W. Taylor (eds.), Human Agency: Language, Duty, and Value. Stanford University Press. pp. 77--101.
Evidentiality.A. I͡U Aĭkhenvalʹd - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
Spatial Deictic Tense and Evidentials in Korean.Kyung-Sook Chung - 2007 - Natural Language Semantics 15 (3):187-219.
Embedded Evidentials in German.Mathias Schenner - 2010 - In Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 49--157.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-01-22

Total views
47 ( #239,158 of 2,499,419 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,166 of 2,499,419 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes