The Semantics of Evidentials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This book gives a compositional, truth‐conditional, crosslinguistic semantics for evidentials set in a theory of the semantics for sentential mood. Central to this semantics is a proposal about a distinction between what propositional content is at‐issue, roughly primary or proffered, and what content is not‐at‐issue. Evidentials contribute not‐at‐issue content, more specifically what I will call a not‐at‐issue restriction. In addition, evidentials can affect the level of commitment a sentence makes to the main proposition, contributed by sentential mood. Building on recent work in the formal semantics of evidentials and related phenomena, the proposed semantics does not appeal to separate dimensions of illocutionary meaning. Instead, I argue that all sentences make three contributions: at‐issue content, not‐at‐issue content, and an illocutionary relation. At‐issue content is presented, made available for subsequent anaphora, but is not directly added to the common ground. Not‐at‐issue content directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary relation uses the at‐issue content to impose structure on the common ground, which, depending on the clause type (e.g., declarative, interrogative), can trigger further updates. Empirical support for this proposal comes from Cheyenne (Algonquian, primary data from the author’s fieldwork), English, and a wide variety of languages that have been discussed in the literature on evidentials.

Information Structure and the Landscape of (Non-)at-issue Meaning

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Horn
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Category Membership ◽  
Conventional Implicature ◽  
Variable Strength ◽  
Nature Of Information ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This article examines cases that illustrate the relation of information structure to truth-conditional semantics, grammatical form, and assertoric force. Before discussing the interaction between information structure and (non-)at-issue meaning, it considers the nature of information and what constitutes information. It then looks at two aspects of the common ground, common ground (CG) content and CG management, as well as the criteria of category membership. The article also explores the varying degrees of at-issueness, the role of rhetorical opposition andbutclauses, as well as the variable strength of at-issue content. The landscape of non-at-issue meaning is presented, and the distinction between conventional implicature and assertorically inert entailments is highlighted using a range of distributional diagnostics. The article concludes by analysing the relation between structural focus and exhaustivity using the semantic and pragmatic approaches.

Lying and Fiction

2018 ◽  
pp. 302-314
Author(s):  
Emar Maier
Keyword(s):  
Speech Acts ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Semantic Framework ◽  
Pragmatic Analysis ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Maxim Of Quality

Lying and fiction both involve the deliberate production of statements that fail to obey Grice’s first Maxim of Quality (“do not say what you believe to be false”). The question thus arises if we can provide a uniform analysis for fiction and lies. This chapter discusses the similarities, but also some fundamental differences between lying and fiction. It argues that there is little hope for a satisfying account within a traditional truth-conditional semantic framework. Rather than immediately moving to a fully pragmatic analysis involving distinct speech acts of fiction-making and lying, the chapter first explores how far we get with the assumption that both are simply assertions, analyzed in a Stalnakerian framework, i.e., as proposals to update the common ground.

Multiple Sluicing, Scope, and Superiority: Consequences for Ellipsis Identity

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadas Kotek ◽  
Matthew Barros
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Scalar Implicatures ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common ◽  
Semantic Identity ◽  
Context Of Utterance

This article defends a semantic identity account of ellipsis licensing. The argument comes from examples of multiple sluicing, especially from Russian. Concentrating on antecedents that contain two quantified statements, we uncover a surprising asymmetry: surface scope antecedents can license a multiple sluice, but inverse scope antecedents cannot. We explain this finding in terms of semantic accounts of ellipsis licensing, where ellipsis is licensed when the sluice corresponds to an (implicit) question under discussion. We show that QUDs cannot be computed from the truth-conditional content of the antecedents alone; instead, they must be computed only after (scalar) implicatures have been calculated and added to the common ground, along with the context of utterance. We further discuss the commitments required of syntactic/LF identity accounts of ellipsis licensing in order to accommodate multiple sluicing with quantified antecedents, and argue that such accounts are practically untenable.

The proper treatment of egophoricity in Kathmandu Newari

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Coppock ◽  
Stephen Wechsler
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
First Person ◽  
Proper Treatment ◽  
Second Person ◽  
Formal Treatment ◽  
Discourse Model ◽  
De Se ◽  
The Common ◽  
Speech Reports

In egophoric (or conjunct/disjunct) verb-marking systems, a conjunct verb form co-occurs with first-person subjects in declaratives and second-person subjects in interrogatives, and also appears in de se attitude and speech reports; a disjunct verb form appears elsewhere. Conjunct marking also interacts with evidentiality: a speaker who abdicates responsibility for the content of an utterance by means of an evidential marker uses the disjunct verb form despite co-occurence with a first-person subject. Focussing on the case of Kathmandu Newari, Coppock and Wechsler propose that conjunct morphology marks the contents of attitudes de se. They develop a formal treatment of egophoricity, including a dynamic discourse model of the way attitudes de se are communicated. The propositional content of an attitude de se, modelled as a set of centered worlds, is effectively uncentered by its agent, to produce an ordinary proposition that is eligible to enter the common ground.

Assertoric commitments

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 155-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikhail Kissine
Keyword(s):  
Speech Acts ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Direct Perception ◽  
The Common

This paper deals with the two kinds of commitment associated with assertive speech acts: the commitment to having justifications for the propositional content and the commitment to the truth of this content. It is argued that the former kind of commitment boils down to the monotonic commitment to the truth of the propositional content, and can be cancelled. The latter, by contrast, is non-monotonic, and is associated with all assertive speech acts, even those containing a reservation marker. These facts can be explained if one (a) endorses the ‘Direct Perception’ view, according to which every piece of communicated information goes, by default, into the hearer’s ‘belief box’; (b) defines the success of assertive speech acts in terms of the possibility to update the common ground with their propositional content.

Modern Theories of Rubber Reclaiming

1958 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. E. Stafford ◽  
R. A. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The Common

Abstract The general principles of rubber reclaiming have been briefly described. References have been made to some of the more recent work on this subject, and some of the common ground of reversion and reclaiming has been indicated. Some speculation on the possibilities of further basic improvements has been put forward.

scholarly journals Discourse update at the service of mirativity effects: the case of the Discursive Dative

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal ◽  
Nora Boneh
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Inclusion Relation ◽  
Classic Model ◽  
Speech Event ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Discourse Management

The classic model of conversation based on the Common Ground (CG), introduced by Karttunen (1974), Lewis (1979) and Stalnaker (1978), was shown to be insufficient for accounting for various conversational phenomena (inter alia Portner 2004, 2007, Farkas & Bruce 2009, Murray 2014). This paper further strengthens this line by analyzing a type of non-truth conditional non-core dative termed the Discursive Dative (DD) as a discourse management device (Krifka 2008, Repp 2013). The DD signals that the asserted proposition p constitutes an exception to a normative generalization believed by the speaker to be shared by the speech event participants. In order to capture the notion of exception we propose to divide the CG into two sets of worlds, those consistent with previous assertions and their presuppositions (CGA) and those consistent with generalizations (CGG). The DD signals a non-inclusion relation between the asserted proposition and the CGG. This enables us to distinguish between different types of mirativity effects, by drawing a distinction between adding a proposition p that was not previously in the speaker’s expectation-set (inter alia DeLancey 1997, 2001, Rett 2009, Peterson 2013, Rett & Murray 2013) and the present case of the DD, where p can very well be in the speaker’s expectation-set, but objectively expected that ~p. 

Graded Theism: A Fundamental Theology of Religions

2021 ◽  
pp. 002114002110391
Author(s):  
George Karuvelil
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Interreligious Dialogue ◽  
Scientific Study ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
Fundamental Theology ◽  
The Common

This article is set in the context of the pastoral difficulties in embracing interreligious dialogue. Tracing the problem to the seeming incompatibility between dialogue and proclamation, it goes on to argue that this difficulty can be overcome by providing an adequate conceptual framework. Using some recent work in fundamental theology, the article proposes ‘graded theism’ as providing the needed conceptual grounding for overcoming the said incompatibility. This article clearly distinguishes fundamental theology from theology of religions, philosophy and theology from scientific study of religions, the common ground required for dialogue from the lowest common denominator of religions postulated on the basis of scientific study. The last distinction enables one to maintain both commonalities as well as particularities of religions, and collaborate with people of other faiths without undermining proclamation.

Capturing the Four-Phase Team Adaptation Process With Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 336-347
Author(s):  
Eleni Georganta ◽  
Felix C. Brodbeck
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scales ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Team Development ◽  
Adaptation Process ◽  
Adaptation Studies ◽  
Team Processes ◽  
Team Adaptation ◽  
The Common ◽  
Acceptable Reliability ◽  
Adaptation Phase

Abstract. As a response to the lack of quantitative and reliable measures of the team adaptation process, the aim of the present study was to develop and validate an instrument for assessing the four phases of the team adaptation process as described by Rosen and colleagues (2011) . Two trained raters and two subject matter expert groups contributed to the development of four behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) that span across the spectrum of team processes involved in each team adaptation phase. To validate the four BARS, two different trained raters assessed independently the team adaptation phases of 66 four-person teams. The validation study provided empirical support for the BARS’ psychometric adequacy. The BARS measures overcame the common middle anchor problem, showed sensitivity in differentiating between teams and between the four phases, showed evidence for acceptable reliability, construct, and criterion validity, and supported the theoretical team adaptation process assumptions. The study contributes to research and praxis by enabling the direct assessment of the overall team adaptation process, thereby facilitating our understanding of this complex phenomenon. This allows the identification of behavioral strengths and weaknesses for targeted team development and comprehensive team adaptation studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document