A Cartographic Approach to Focus-Related Linguistic Phenomena

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

A Cartographic Approach to Focus-Related Linguistic Phenomena A Dissertation Submitted to the University of Tsukuba In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Masatoshi HONDA 2018 Acknowledgements This doctoral thesis has benefited greatly from the invaluable academic, emotional, and intellectual support provided by my mentors, research fellows, and many others. I cannot list them all here, but from the bottom of my heart, I express my gratitude to all those who have directly or indirectly helped me with my doctoral research project. First, my deepest gratitude goes to the internal members of my dissertation committee: Nobuhiro Kaga, Yukio Hirose, Masaharu Shimada, and Naoaki Wada. Nobuhiro Kaga, who chaired the committee, has generously supported me throughout my time as a graduate student at the University of Tsukuba. Although my requests were often sudden and without warning, he read my manuscripts carefully, both abstracts and papers, and provided me with constructive and critical comments. He spent much time and effort on painstakingly assessing the manuscripts for my thesis and giving me detailed comments on the arguments of this thesis and the quality of English, all the way up until the deadline. Yukio Hirose provided me with crucial information on the literature concerning my subject. I was often surprised by how deeply he understood my work, sometimes even better than I did. My special thanks go to Masaharu Shimada, who spent a great deal of time on reading Cruschina (2011) with me. Cruschina’s theoretical view is the core of this doctoral thesis, and he gave me invaluable and thought-provoking comments on my work. His perseverance and support greatly improved my approach. Naoaki Wada also provided me with detailed feedback on my manuscripts. His critical and constructive comments helped me consider how to introduce theoretical concepts in a readily understandable manner. I am greatly indebted to the external committee member, Nobuko Hasegawa. She played a formative role as a supervisor for my master’s thesis, which I completed at Kanda University of International Studies. Her detailed knowledge of the research history i concerning focus in the generative grammar framework allowed me to greatly improve the introduction of my dissertation (along with the subsequent chapters). Her contributions have had such depth and insight that more time and work is still required to digest what I have learned from her. It gives me immense joy to remember what she has taught me and to connect it with my research project. Special thanks are due to Yusuke Kubota for the gift of his constructive critique. Additionally, I benefited from a series of lectures on categorial grammar and linguistic seminars given by Robert Levine. From these, I learned how important and difficult it is to open one’s mind and be self-critical. I received valuable support from the following people: Kazuya Nishimaki, Shiro Takeuchi, Akihiko Sakamoto, Tatsuhiro Okubo, Souma Mori, Keita Ikarashi, Shotaro Namiki, Wenwen Ding, Ryohei Naya, Hiroko Wakamatsu, Toshinao Nakazawa, Takashi Ishida, Haruki Isono, Shohei Nagata, Kazuyoshi Ishikawa, and Yukihiro Kanda. I especially benefited from discussions with Keita Ikarashi and Ryohei Naya during the course of our joint research project and subsequent work. I am grateful to Rachel Ballew, Julio Pereira, and Poole Alana, who kindly acted as informants. It was because of their generous cooperation and comments that I was also able to improve my general and academic English skills. I especially benefitted from discussions with Rachel Ballew. She spent much time and effort on reading my manuscripts carefully. I am thankful to those teachers who played a salient role in my master’s study at Kanda University of International Studies. They inspired me to pursue research. In addition to Nobuko Hasegawa, these include the late emeritus Professor Kazuko Inoue, Yoshio Endo, Yasuo Ishii, and Kazuma Fujimaki. During my time as a researcher at the Center for Teaching English to Children (CTEC), Atsuki Osada, Makiko Tanaka, and Hiromi Kawai ii granted me invaluable opportunities to study elementary school English education. Yuzuru Miyamoto, with whom I shared my first year at CTEC, also deserves my gratitude. Special thanks go to Noboru Kamiya and Ikuko Hasebe, who invited me for a joint project. This played a bridging role in my decision to attempt the entrance examination for graduate school at the University of Tsukuba. Without their help, I would not be where I am. Kuniko Otsuka, the office clerk of the graduate school of Kanda University of International Studies, should be recognized for her support in helping me prepare for my appointment with Nobuko Hasegawa and for my life as a graduate student. I should not forget Asami Watanabe. She was a keen and kind graduate student at Kanda University of International Studies. I learned much from her, and she taught me many invaluable life lessons during her lifetime and even after her sudden death. I also received emotional support from Akiko Okano. When I was an undergraduate student at Fukushima University, Toshihiko Asaka, who supervised my graduation thesis, taught me the basics of linguistics, opening the door to the study of English linguistics. I appreciate his academic, emotional, and intellectual support, as it benefitted me greatly. Former Professor Robert Murphy taught me academic writing and corrected mistakes in my graduation thesis. Even after I graduated from Fukushima University, he acted as an informant and helped me develop my dissertation project. Former Professor Noriko Nemoto, who taught me the basics of lexical semantics, will always be remembered. Last but not least, I express my deepest gratitude to my parents, Takeji Honda and Tomomi Honda, my brother, Hirotaka Honda, and my great grandfather, Goro Watanabe, for their perseverance and support in my days as a graduate student. I dedicate this thesis to my grandmother, Kiyo Watanabe, who passed away just before my first year at Tsukuba began. iii Tsukuba December 2018 Masatoshi Honda iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. i List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1 Introduction 1. 1 Preliminary Remarks ...................................................................1 1. 2 Overview of the Research on Focus in Generative Grammar ........ 2 1. 2. 1 Focus at the Interface between Syntax, Semantics, and Phonology ..................................................................... 2 1. 2. 2 Syntax, Focus Structure, and Thetic/Categorical Judgments ..................................................................... 7 1. 2. 3 Focus and Topicalization ............................................. 10 1. 2. 4 Focus as Quantification ............................................... 10 1. 2. 5. Interim Summary ......................................................... 14 1. 3 Focus in the Cartographic Enterprise ....................................... 15 1. 4 Aims ........................................................................................... 22 1. 5 Organization ............................................................................... 23 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background 2. 1 Introduction .................................................................................26 2. 2 S-selection and Criteria as Triggers for A-bar Movement ........... 27 2. 3 The Force-Fin System ................................................................. 31 2. 4 The Syntax of Topic and Focus .............................................. 34 2. 4. 1 Topic vs. Focus ........................................................... 34 v 2. 4. 2 CLLD vs. Topicalization .......................................... 41 2. 5 The Two-Layered Focus Hypothesis .......................................... 44 2. 5. 1 IFoc vs. CFoc ........................................................... 44 2. 5. 2 Neutral IFoc and Emphatic IFoc ................................ 46 2. 5. 3 CFoc vs. Emphatic IFoc .............................................. 48 2. 5. 4 Emphatic IFoc and the Speaker’s Evaluative Meaning ...... 52 2. 6 Wh-Movement under the Two-Layered Focus Hypothesis .......... 55 2. 6. 1 Wh-Movement and D-Linking ................................. 55 2. 6. 2 Extension to Wh-Movement in English ..................... 60 2. 7. Summary .................................................................................... 64 Chapter 3 Evidence for IFoc Fronting in the Clausal Domain 3. 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 66 3. 2 Particle Fronting from the Perspective of Emphatic IFoc Fronting ... 67 3. 2. 1 Introduction ................................................................. 67 3. 2. 2 Trotzke and Quaglia (2016) ......................................... 72 3. 2. 2. 1 Semantic Transparency ........................... 72 3. 2. 2. 2 Expressive Particle Fronting .................... 75 3. 2. 3 Extension to Particle Fronting in English ................... 79 3. 2. 3. 1 Some Basic Properties of Locative Inversion in English ..................................................... 80 3. 2. 3. 2 Particle Fronting in English as Emphatic IFoc Fronting .......................................... 83 3. 2. 4 The Derivation of Particle
Recommended publications
  • The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology

    The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology

    UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05b2s4wg ISBN 978-3946234043 Author Schütze, Carson T Publication Date 2016-02-01 DOI 10.17169/langsci.b89.101 Data Availability The data associated with this publication are managed by: Language Science Press, Berlin Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language Classics in Linguistics 2 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language science press Carson T. Schütze. 2019. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology (Classics in Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/89 © 2019, Carson T. Schütze Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-02-9 (Digital) 978-3-946234-03-6 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-04-3 (Softcover) 978-1-523743-32-2
  • Veridicality and Utterance Meaning

    Veridicality and Utterance Meaning

    2011 Fifth IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing Veridicality and utterance understanding Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Christopher D. Manning and Christopher Potts Linguistics Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 {mcdm,manning,cgpotts}@stanford.edu Abstract—Natural language understanding depends heavily on making the requisite inferences. The inherent uncertainty of assessing veridicality – whether the speaker intends to convey that pragmatic inference suggests to us that veridicality judgments events mentioned are actual, non-actual, or uncertain. However, are not always categorical, and thus are better modeled as this property is little used in relation and event extraction systems, and the work that has been done has generally assumed distributions. We therefore treat veridicality as a distribution- that it can be captured by lexical semantic properties. Here, prediction task. We trained a maximum entropy classifier on we show that context and world knowledge play a significant our annotations to assign event veridicality distributions. Our role in shaping veridicality. We extend the FactBank corpus, features include not only lexical items like hedges, modals, which contains semantically driven veridicality annotations, with and negations, but also structural features and approximations pragmatically informed ones. Our annotations are more complex than the lexical assumption predicts but systematic enough to of world knowledge. The resulting model yields insights into be included in computational work on textual understanding. the complex pragmatic factors that shape readers’ veridicality They also indicate that veridicality judgments are not always judgments. categorical, and should therefore be modeled as distributions. We build a classifier to automatically assign event veridicality II. CORPUS ANNOTATION distributions based on our new annotations.
  • A Type-Theoretical Analysis of Complex Verb Generation

    A Type-Theoretical Analysis of Complex Verb Generation

    A Type-theoretical Analysis of Complex Verb Generation Satoshi Tojo Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc. 2-22 Harumi 3, Chuo-ku Tokyo 104, Japan e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract hardly find a verb element in the target language, which corresponds with the original word exactly in Tense and aspect, together with mood and modality, meaning. However we also need to admit that the usually form the entangled structure of a complex verb. problem of knowledge representation of tense and as- They are often hard to translate by machines, because pect (namely time), or that of mood and modality is of both syntactic and semantic differences between lan- not only the problem of verb translation, but that of guages. This problem seriously affects upon the gen- the whole natural language understanding. In this pa- eration process because those verb components in in- per, in order to realize a type calculus in syntax, we terlingua are hardly rearranged correctly in the target depart from a rather mundane subset of tense, aspects, language. We propose here a method in which each and modMities, which will be argued in section 2. verb element is defined as a mathematical function ac- cording to its type of type theory. This formalism gives 1.2 The difference in the structure each element its legal position in the complex verb in the target language and certifies so-called partial trans- In the Japanese translation of (1): lation. In addition, the generation algorithm is totally oyoi-de-i-ta-rashii free from the stepwise calculation, and is available on parallel architecture.
  • Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin

    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin

    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian evidential system Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin This paper provides an account of the Bulgarian admirative construction andits place within the Bulgarian evidential system based on (i) new observations on the morphological, temporal, and evidential properties of the admirative, (ii) a criti- cal reexamination of existing approaches to the Bulgarian evidential system, and (iii) insights from a similar mirative construction in Spanish. I argue in particular that admirative sentences are assertions based on evidence of some sort (reporta- tive, inferential, or direct) which are contrasted against the set of beliefs held by the speaker up to the point of receiving the evidence; the speaker’s past beliefs entail a proposition that clashes with the assertion, triggering belief revision and resulting in a sense of surprise. I suggest an analysis of the admirative in terms of a mirative operator that captures the evidential, temporal, aspectual, and modal properties of the construction in a compositional fashion. The analysis suggests that although mirativity and evidentiality can be seen as separate semantic cate- gories, the Bulgarian admirative represents a cross-linguistically relevant case of a mirative extension of evidential verbal forms. Keywords: mirativity, evidentiality, fake past 1 Introduction The Bulgarian evidential system is an ongoing topic of discussion both withre- spect to its interpretation and its morphological buildup. In this paper, I focus on the currently poorly understood admirative construction. The analysis I present is based on largely unacknowledged observations and data involving the mor- phological structure, the syntactic environment, and the evidential meaning of the admirative. Elena Karagjosova.
  • Development of a General-Purpose Categorial Grammar Treebank

    Development of a General-Purpose Categorial Grammar Treebank

    Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), pages 5195–5201 Marseille, 11–16 May 2020 c European Language Resources Association (ELRA), licensed under CC-BY-NC Development of a General-Purpose Categorial Grammar Treebank Yusuke Kubota, Koji Mineshima, Noritsugu Hayashi, Shinya Okano NINJAL, Ochanomizu University, The University of Tokyo, idem. f10-2 Midori-cho, Tachikawa; 2-2-1 Otsuka, Bunkyo; 3-8-1 Komaba, Megurog, Tokyo, Japan [email protected], [email protected], fhayashi, [email protected] Abstract This paper introduces ABC Treebank, a general-purpose categorial grammar (CG) treebank for Japanese. It is ‘general-purpose’ in the sense that it is not tailored to a specific variant of CG, but rather aims to offer a theory-neutral linguistic resource (as much as possible) which can be converted to different versions of CG (specifically, CCG and Type-Logical Grammar) relatively easily. In terms of linguistic analysis, it improves over the existing Japanese CG treebank (Japanese CCGBank) on the treatment of certain linguistic phenomena (passives, causatives, and control/raising predicates) for which the lexical specification of the syntactic information reflecting local dependencies turns out to be crucial. In this paper, we describe the underlying ‘theory’ dubbed ABC Grammar that is taken as a basis for our treebank, outline the general construction of the corpus, and report on some preliminary results applying the treebank in a semantic parsing system for generating logical representations of sentences. Keywords: treebank, categorial grammar, Japanese, annotation 1. Introduction Table 1: Comparison with related work original corpus output This paper reports on the progress of the construction of a H&S Penn Treebank English CCG general-purpose categorial grammar treebank in Japanese Uematsu et al.
  • A Syntactic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions

    A Syntactic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions

    A Syntactic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions Asier Alcázar 1. Introduction* A rhetorical question (RQ: 1b) is viewed as a pragmatic reading of a genuine question (GQ: 1a). (1) a. Who helped John? [Mary, Peter, his mother, his brother, a neighbor, the police…] b. Who helped John? [Speaker follows up: “Well, me, of course…who else?”] Rohde (2006) and Caponigro & Sprouse (2007) view RQs as interrogatives biased in their answer set (1a = unbiased interrogative; 1b = biased interrogative). In unbiased interrogatives, the probability distribution of the answers is even.1 The answer in RQs is biased because it belongs in the Common Ground (CG, Stalnaker 1978), a set of mutual or common beliefs shared by speaker and addressee. The difference between RQs and GQs is thus pragmatic. Let us refer to these approaches as Option A. Sadock (1971, 1974) and Han (2002), by contrast, analyze RQs as no longer interrogative, but rather as assertions of opposite polarity (2a = 2b). Accordingly, RQs are not defined in terms of the properties of their answer set. The CG is not invoked. Let us call these analyses Option B. (2) a. Speaker says: “I did not lie.” b. Speaker says: “Did I lie?” [Speaker follows up: “No! I didn’t!”] For Han (2002: 222) RQs point to a pragmatic interface: “The representation at this level is not LF, which is the output of syntax, but more abstract than that. It is the output of further post-LF derivation via interaction with at least a sub part of the interpretational component, namely pragmatics.” RQs are not seen as syntactic objects, but rather as a post-syntactic interface phenomenon.
  • Sentential Negation and Negative Concord

    Sentential Negation and Negative Concord

    Sentential Negation and Negative Concord Published by LOT phone: +31.30.2536006 Trans 10 fax: +31.30.2536000 3512 JK Utrecht email: [email protected] The Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Kasimir Malevitch: Black Square. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. ISBN 90-76864-68-3 NUR 632 Copyright © 2004 by Hedde Zeijlstra. All rights reserved. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. Mr P.F. van der Heijden ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op woensdag 15 december 2004, te 10:00 uur door HEDZER HUGO ZEIJLSTRA geboren te Rotterdam Promotiecommissie: Promotores: Prof. Dr H.J. Bennis Prof. Dr J.A.G. Groenendijk Copromotor: Dr J.B. den Besten Leden: Dr L.C.J. Barbiers (Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam) Dr P.J.E. Dekker Prof. Dr A.C.J. Hulk Prof. Dr A. von Stechow (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen) Prof. Dr F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen Voor Petra Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................V 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1 1.1 FOUR ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NEGATION.......................................................1
  • Direct Compositionality and Variable-Free Semantics: the Case of “Principle B”

    Direct Compositionality and Variable-Free Semantics: the Case of “Principle B”

    Direct Compositionality and Variable-Free Semantics: The Case of “Principle B” Drafty outline/handout of material to be presented at the Workshop on Direct Compositionality Pauline Jacobson Brown University 0. The big picture goals: (A) To argue that direct compositionality is a much simpler hypothesis about the organization of the grammar than the competing views It is, therefore, the view we should hope is correct. Apparent challenges to this view should perhaps lead us to rethink some of the underlying assumptions which give rise to these challenges. (B) To point out: a consequence of at least a reasonably strong version of direct compositionality is that structured representations (e.g., trees) play no actual role in the grammar: they are not something that grammatical rules/principles can “see”. They are just convenient representation for the lnguist (representing the syntactic proof system and the compositional semantics) (C) To point out the consequences of this with respect to principles regarding the distribution of pronouns (reflexives, etc.). Standard assumption: these require the grammar to include principles which are stated on non strictly-local chucks of representation Hence: the hypothesis of direct compositionality should inspire us to rethink such statements (D) To discuss a second way in which binding principles have traditionally been taken to challenge direct compositionality (at least in its strong form): • there are many cases where there are binding type effects (e.g., "binding" of pronouns, "binding" of reflexives to satisfy Principle A, Principle B violations, etc.) but where on the surface, there is no big enough chunk of representation Typical example : connectivity in specificational sentences (1) What John is is proud of himself.
  • Tagalog Pala: an Unsurprising Case of Mirativity

    Tagalog Pala: an Unsurprising Case of Mirativity

    Tagalog pala: an unsurprising case of mirativity Scott AnderBois Brown University Similar to many descriptions of miratives cross-linguistically, Schachter & Otanes(1972)’s clas- sic descriptive grammar of Tagalog describes the second position particle pala as “expressing mild surprise at new information, or an unexpected event or situation.” Drawing on recent work on mi- rativity in other languages, however, we show that this characterization needs to be refined in two ways. First, we show that while pala can be used in cases of surprise, pala itself merely encodes the speaker’s sudden revelation with the counterexpectational nature of surprise arising pragmatically or from other aspects of the sentence such as other particles and focus. Second, we present data from imperatives and interrogatives, arguing that this revelation need not concern ‘information’ per se, but rather the illocutionay update the sentence encodes. Finally, we explore the interactions between pala and other elements which express mirativity in some way and/or interact with the mirativity pala expresses. 1. Introduction Like many languages of the Philippines, Tagalog has a prominent set of discourse particles which express a variety of different evidential, attitudinal, illocutionary, and discourse-related meanings. Morphosyntactically, these particles have long been known to be second-position clitics, with a number of authors having explored fine-grained details of their distribution, rela- tive order, and the interaction of this with different types of sentences (e.g. Schachter & Otanes (1972), Billings & Konopasky(2003) Anderson(2005), Billings(2005) Kaufman(2010)). With a few recent exceptions, however, comparatively little has been said about the semantics/prag- matics of these different elements beyond Schachter & Otanes(1972)’s pioneering work (which is quite detailed given their broad scope of their work).
  • Chapter 1 Negation in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective

    Chapter 1 Negation in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective

    Chapter 1 Negation in a cross-linguistic perspective 0. Chapter summary This chapter introduces the empirical scope of our study on the expression and interpretation of negation in natural language. We start with some background notions on negation in logic and language, and continue with a discussion of more linguistic issues concerning negation at the syntax-semantics interface. We zoom in on cross- linguistic variation, both in a synchronic perspective (typology) and in a diachronic perspective (language change). Besides expressions of propositional negation, this book analyzes the form and interpretation of indefinites in the scope of negation. This raises the issue of negative polarity and its relation to negative concord. We present the main facts, criteria, and proposals developed in the literature on this topic. The chapter closes with an overview of the book. We use Optimality Theory to account for the syntax and semantics of negation in a cross-linguistic perspective. This theoretical framework is introduced in Chapter 2. 1 Negation in logic and language The main aim of this book is to provide an account of the patterns of negation we find in natural language. The expression and interpretation of negation in natural language has long fascinated philosophers, logicians, and linguists. Horn’s (1989) Natural history of negation opens with the following statement: “All human systems of communication contain a representation of negation. No animal communication system includes negative utterances, and consequently, none possesses a means for assigning truth value, for lying, for irony, or for coping with false or contradictory statements.” A bit further on the first page, Horn states: “Despite the simplicity of the one-place connective of propositional logic ( ¬p is true if and only if p is not true) and of the laws of inference in which it participate (e.g.
  • Evidentiality

    Evidentiality

    Evidentiality This section covers evidentiality, mirativity, and validational force, as separate concepts that are closely intertwined. Evidentiality in Balti is expressed with clause-final particles, and are generally uninflected for tense or aspect. There is a distinction between the sources of evidence for a statement, and a multi-tiered distinction in validational force. 1 Hearsay In Balti, information that the speaker has experienced first-hand, or has any kind of first- hand knowledge of, is unmarked. In the first example below, the speaker has absolute knowledge that it’s raining, from experiencing it himself; perhaps he is outside and feels the rain hitting his skin, or sees it from a window. (1) namkor oŋ-en jʊt rain come-PROG COP ‘It’s raining.’ (first-hand knowledge) If the speaker gained this knowledge from another person, without witnessing the event himself, he expresses this source of information with the hearsay particle ‘lo’, which always occurs clause-finally. (2) namkor oŋ-en jʊt lo Rain come-PROG COP HSY ‘It’s raining.’ (hearsay) This particle occurs when the speaker is telling someone else, other than the person he received the information from. In other words, if I told Muhammad that it’s raining, and he went to tell someone else that it’s raining, he would express it using example 2 above. In this scenario, Muhammad had been in a basement all day with no windows and thus didn’t perceive any evidence of rain, and I had first-hand knowledge that it’s raining. This particle is uninflected for tense/aspect, and can be used with any tense.
  • Like, Hedging and Mirativity. a Unified Account

    Like, Hedging and Mirativity. a Unified Account

    Like, hedging and mirativity. A unified account. Abstract (4) Never thought I would say this, but Lil’ Wayne, is like. smart. We draw a connection between ‘hedging’ (5) My friend I used to hang out with is like use of the discourse particle like in Amer- . rich now. ican English and its use as a mirative marker of surprise. We propose that both (6) Whoa! I like . totally won again! uses of like widen the size of a pragmati- cally restricted set – a pragmatic halo vs. a In (4), the speaker is signaling that they did not doxastic state. We thus derive hedging and expect to discover that Lil Wayne is smart; in (5) surprise effects in a unified way, outlining the speaker is surprised to learn that their former an underlying link between the semantics friend is now rich; and in (6) the speaker is sur- of like and the one of other mirative mark- prised by the fact that they won again. ers cross-linguistically. After presenting several diagnostics that point to a genuine empirical difference between these 1 Introduction uses, we argue that they do in fact share a core grammatical function: both trigger the expansion Mirative expressions, which mark surprising in- of a pragmatically restricted set: the pragmatic formation (DeLancey 1997), are often expressed halo of an expression for the hedging variant; and through linguistic markers that are also used to en- the doxastic state of the speaker for the mirative code other, seemingly unrelated meanings – e.g., use. We derive hedging and mirativity as effects evidential markers that mark lack of direct evi- of the particular type of object to which like ap- dence (Turkish: Slobin and Aksu 1982; Peterson plies.