Publikation: Disagreement with Evidentials : A Call for Subjectivity
Lade...
Dateien
Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.
Datum
2016
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Beitrag zu einem Konferenzband
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
HUNTER, Julie, ed. and others. JerSem : Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SEMDIAL 2016). 2016, pp. 65-75. ISSN 2308-2275
Zusammenfassung
Across languages, grammatical evidentials (linguistic expressions of information source) exhibit the property of non-challengeability: they resist direct denial in dialogues. The literature attributes this property to the notat- issue status of the information contributed by evidentials. I argue against this view and show that with respect to disagreement, evidentials pattern with subjective expressions such as first-person belief and pain reports. Like other subjective expressions and unlike e.g. appositives, evidentials ban all kinds of disagreement about content and not just explicit denial. This novel observation has no account in the literature. It falls out naturally once a theory of evidentiality incorporates subjectivity. It is thus unnecessary to appeal to a special discourse status of evidentials to explain their behavior in conversations.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
400 Sprachwissenschaft, Linguistik
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
20th Workshop Series on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (Semidal 2016), 16. Juni 2016 - 18. Juni 2016, New Brunswick, NJ
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690
KOROTKOVA, Natasha, 2016. Disagreement with Evidentials : A Call for Subjectivity. 20th Workshop Series on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (Semidal 2016). New Brunswick, NJ, 16. Juni 2016 - 18. Juni 2016. In: HUNTER, Julie, ed. and others. JerSem : Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SEMDIAL 2016). 2016, pp. 65-75. ISSN 2308-2275BibTex
@inproceedings{Korotkova2016Disag-48394,
year={2016},
title={Disagreement with Evidentials : A Call for Subjectivity},
url={http://events.illc.uva.nl/semdial/proceedings/semdial2016_jersem_proceedings.pdf},
issn={2308-2275},
booktitle={JerSem : Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SEMDIAL 2016)},
pages={65--75},
editor={Hunter, Julie},
author={Korotkova, Natasha}
}RDF
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/48394">
<foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
<dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2020-01-27T13:46:46Z</dcterms:available>
<dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
<dcterms:title>Disagreement with Evidentials : A Call for Subjectivity</dcterms:title>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Across languages, grammatical evidentials (linguistic expressions of information source) exhibit the property of non-challengeability: they resist direct denial in dialogues. The literature attributes this property to the notat- issue status of the information contributed by evidentials. I argue against this view and show that with respect to disagreement, evidentials pattern with subjective expressions such as first-person belief and pain reports. Like other subjective expressions and unlike e.g. appositives, evidentials ban all kinds of disagreement about content and not just explicit denial. This novel observation has no account in the literature. It falls out naturally once a theory of evidentiality incorporates subjectivity. It is thus unnecessary to appeal to a special discourse status of evidentials to explain their behavior in conversations.</dcterms:abstract>
<dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2020-01-27T13:46:46Z</dc:date>
<dc:creator>Korotkova, Natasha</dc:creator>
<dcterms:issued>2016</dcterms:issued>
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
<void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
<dc:contributor>Korotkova, Natasha</dc:contributor>
<bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/48394"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
2020-01-27
