1 / 25

Expressing Evidentiality in Lithuanian: the case of neuter adjectives

Expressing Evidentiality in Lithuanian: the case of neuter adjectives. Anna Ruskan Vilnius University. Outline. Evidentiality and its expression in Lithuanian. Background research on adjectives functioning evidentially.

jacie
Download Presentation

Expressing Evidentiality in Lithuanian: the case of neuter adjectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Expressing Evidentiality in Lithuanian: the case of neuter adjectives Anna Ruskan Vilnius University

  2. Outline Stockholm, SLE Conference • Evidentialityand its expression in Lithuanian. • Background research on adjectives functioning evidentially. • CTP and parenthetical use of Lithuanian neuter adjectives in fiction and academic discourse: quantitative findings. • Evidential functions of the CTPs and parentheticals: sources of evidence, (inter)subjective values and pragmatic implications. • From evidential to pragmatic functions.

  3. The Category of Evidentiality Stockhlom, SLE Conference Evidentiality a functional-conceptual domain indicating the speaker’s/writer’s sources of information for a judgement. (Wiemer 2008; Boye & Harder 2009) • Types of evidence: direct/indirect (Willett 1988; Plungian 2001; Aikhenvald2004) • Sources of evidence: self/other (Frawley1992) • Interaction of typesand sources of evidence (Squartini 2008)

  4. Indirect evidence: inferences • “Observation-motivated” and “reasoning-motivated” (Willett 1988; Plungian 2001; Aikhenvald 2004) • Circumstantial, generic and conjectural inferences (Squartini 2008) • “Perceptual”and “Conceptual” inferences (Diewald and Smirnova 2010: 63) “perceptual input” “internal reflection (cognition)” Stockholm, SLE Conference

  5. Indirect evidence: inferences “(…) inferentialsarise from the need to assign causes to observed situations.” (Willett 1988: 61) “<…>inferential evidentials primarily denote the speaker’s reflection of some evidence,i. e. they indicate the relation between the described situation and some other situation, which is treated by the speaker as evidence for the former.” (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 63) Stockholm, SLE Conference

  6. Evidentiality in Lithuanian • Morphological: participial constructions. (Ambrazas 1977; Gronemeyer 1997; Lavine 2006; Wiemer 2006; Holvoet 2007) LT: Čia vaiko miegota. (Wiemer 2006: 35) EN:‘(Obviously) the/a child has slept here.’ • Non-morphological: verbs of perception, particles.(Usonienė 2001, 2003; Wiemer 2007, 2010) LT: Matyti, kadjisnamie. (Usonienė 2003: 211) EN: ‘Itis seen that he (is) at home.’ Stockholm, SLE Conference

  7. Focus: Neuter Adjectives akivaizdu‘evident’, aišku‘clear’, panašu ‘similar, likely’, natūralu‘natural’ • Complement-Taking-Predicates (CTPs), CTP + thatS LT: <…> palyginusšiassąvokasakivaizdu,kadjosnėratapačios. EN: ‘<…> having compared these concepts it is evidentthat they are not identical.’ • Parentheticals (initial, medial, final position) LT: Kalba, aišku, yrapriemonė, lemiantižmoniųtarpusaviobendravimą. EN: ‘Language, clearly,is a means that shapes human communication.’ Stockholm, SLE Conference ty

  8. Background research • Epistemic/modal/evidential adjectives in Germanic languages (Biberet al.1999; Nuyts 2001;Marín-Arrese 2007; 2009) (inter)subjectivity - shared/non-shared evidence/responsibility (Nuyts2001: 33) • Lithuanian  CTP and parenthetical use of neuter adjectives (Tekorienė 1990; Akelaitis 1992; 2011) Adverbialization (Smetona & Usonienė 2012) Stockholm, SLE Conference

  9. Aims Stockholm, SLE Conference • To identify evidential functions of the neuter adjectives akivaizdu‘evident’, aišku ‘clear’, panašu ‘similar, likely’and natūralu ‘natural’ used as CTPs and parentheticals. • To compare the evidential functions of the neuter adjectives in fiction and academicdiscourse along the parameters of the sourceof evidence, (inter)subjectivity and pragmaticimplications. • To explore the loss of evidential functions and acquisition of pragmatic functions.

  10. Methods and Data Stockholm, SLE Conference • Corpus-based methodology • The Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language: the sub-corpus of fiction (about 7 million words; http://www.vdu.lt) • The Corpus of Academic Lithuanian (CorALit: about 9 million words; http://www.coralit.lt/) The sub-corpora: B (biomedical sciences) H (humanities) S (social sciences) P (physical sciences) T (technological sciences)

  11. Frequency in the CCLL (Fiction) and CorALit Stockholm, SLE Conference

  12. Frequency of CTPs and parentheticals:CCLL (Fiction) and CorALit (Acad) Stockholm, SLE Conference

  13. Percentage of the parenthetical use: initial, medial, final position Stockholm, SLE Conference

  14. Functions of CTPs and parentheticals Stockholm, SLE Conference

  15. “Perceptual” inferences Fiction LT:Kapitonaspirmasmaneužšnekino, nuobodžiavoaišku. EN: ‘The captain first spoke to me, he was bored clearly.’ Academic discourse LT:Iš kreiviųaišku,jog tų bandinių <…> pH buvo didesnis. EN: ‘Fromthe graphsit is clearthat in those samples pH was more prominent.’ klausimai. Stockholm, SLE Conference

  16. “Conceptual” inferences Fiction LT:Nuo mažens man buvo akivaizdu, kad ne tiesa, o kažkas kita yra literatūros alfa ir omega. EN: ‘Since childhood it has been evidentto me that not truth but something else is alpha and omega of literature.’ Academic discourse LT:Analizuojant paskelbtąsias užsienio šalių tyrinėtojų publikacijasakivaizdu, kad didesnė dalis tyrinėjimų skirta filtravimo algoritmams sukurti. EN: ‘Studying the publications of foreign researchersit is evidentthat most of the research is devoted to designing algorithms for filtering’. Stockholm, SLE Conference

  17. Strong argumentation: reliable/valid evidence LT: <…>Tiuringomašinanekeičiajuostojeįrašytųsimbolių, nekeičiamašinosbūsenos <…> Akivaizdu, kadšimašinanekeičiajuostosturinioirniekadanesustoja. (Acad) EN:‘<…> Turing machine does not change the symbols written on the tape, does not change the mode of the machine <…> It is evident that this machine does not change the contents of the tape and it never stops.’ LT:Kadangi <…> šiluminis efektas priklauso nuo temperatūros, taisavaimeaišku, kad ir šiluminės talpos turi priklausyti nuotemperatūros. (Acad) EN: ‘Because <…> the heat effect depends on temperature, soit is self-evidentthat heat capacity must also be dependent on temperature.’ Stockholm, SLE Conference

  18. Cautious argumentation: less reliable/valid evidence LT: Todėlirlikoneaišku, kiekgarbėskonsulųStokholmeturėjoLietuva 1927–1940 m. – du, tris, keturisardaugiau(skurdišaltiniųbazėapsunkinaatsakymopaieškas), o juolabiaukadabaigiasipirmasis ir prasideda antrasis Lietuvos konsulatų Švedijoje funkcionavimo etapas –1931 ar 1933 metais? Panašu, kad pirmasis garbės konsulatų steigimo etapas Švedijoje tęsėsi ne iki 1930 m. <…> o gerokai ilgiau – iki 1933 metų. EN:‘Therefore it remains unclearhow many honorary consuls of Lithuania there were in Stockholm in 1922−1940 – two, three, four or more (the poor database makes the search difficult), and especially when the first period of the activities of the Lithuanian consulates in Sweden ended and the second started – 1931 or 1933? It is likelythat the first period of the establishment of honorary consulates in Sweden did not last until 1930 <…> but much longer – until 1933.’ Stockholm, SLE Conference

  19. Pragmatic functions: response/reaction Stockholm, SLE Conference LT:<…> kurgibuvotedingęs? - Niekur. Buvautikkiekužsnūdęs. - Mat kaip! <…> Užsnūdęs,aišku. (Fiction) EN: ‘<…> where have you been? – Nowhere. I’ve taken a nap. – Interesting! <…> You’ve taken a nap, I understand.’ LT:Namie, aišku , nieko neradai? (Fiction) EN: ‘You did not, clearly/of course,find anyone home?’ LT:Ko reikia tau? <...> Na, kai ką nors skaitai?..” “Ne vien, aišku , malonumo!..” (Fiction) EN:‘What do you need? <...> When you’re reading something?” “Not only, clearly/of course, pleasure!..”’

  20. Pragmatic functions: emphasizer, common ground LT:Duris užtrenkiau, aišku , per garsiai <…> (Fiction) EN: ‘I shut the door, clearly/of course, too loudly.’ LT:Argi jis nepažįsta žvirblio? Aišku, pažįsta <…> (Fiction) EN: ‘Cannot he recognize a sparrow? Clearly/of course, he can <…>.’ LT: Natūralu, jogvaikuiikimokyklinioamžiaustarpsnyjeartimiausiassociumasyrašeima. (Acad) EN: ‘It is natural that the closest social unit to a child in the period of pre-school age is a family.’ Stockholm, SLE Conference

  21. From evidential to pragmatic markers • In fiction: contexts of emotional speech requiring emphasis and confirmation rather than evidential grounding. • In academic discourse: highly argumentative contexts requiring no supporting evidence (Aijmer 2008), appeal to common knowledge (Hyland 2008) and dialogicalityrealizations (Martin & White 2005). Stockholm, SLE Conference

  22. Concluding remarks: 1 • Evidential CTPs and parentheticals inferences based on “perceptual” and “conceptual” sources of evidence. • AKIVAIZDU ‘evident’ and PANAŠU ‘likely’ - evidential in all contexts of use (CTPs). Not prone to parenthetical use and restricted in pragmatic functions. • AIŠKU‘clear’ – most frequent parenthetical that displays an array of functions (from evidential to pragmatic). • NATŪRALU ‘natural’ – leastevidential. Stockholm, SLE Conference

  23. Concluding remarks: 2 • Discourse differences: Fiction  subjective inferences, emphasis. Academic discourse  intersubjective inferences, validation of research(Grossmann & Tutin2010), polemic with other points of view(Fløttum 2006), hedging (Šinkūnienė 2012). • Parentheticalization and loss of evidential functions. Functional parallels with evidential adverbs in Germanic and Romance languages (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007; Cornillie 2010). Stockholm, SLE Conference

  24. References: 1 Stockholm, SLE Conference • Aijmer, Karin. 2008. Modal adverbs in interaction − obviously and definitely in adolescent speech. In TerttuNevalainenet al., eds. The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 61-83. • Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1977. Netiesioginės nuosakos (modus relativus) paplitimas ir kilmės problema.Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 17: lietuvių arealinės lingvistikos klausimai, 7‒54. • Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Akelaitis, Gintautas. 1992. Dabartinėslietuviųkalbosįterptiniaivienetai (semantika, struktūra, paskirtisdiskurse). Humanitarinių mokslų daktaro disertacija [PhD dissertation]. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. • Akelaitis, Gintautas. 2011. Panašu – naujas modalinis žodis? Gimtoji Kalba (11): 3-10. • Biberet al. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. • Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16 (1), 9-43. • Cornillie, Bert. 2010. An interactional approach to epistemic and evidential adverbs in Spanish conversation. In Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova, eds. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 309-330. • Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German. Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. • Fløttum, Kjersti, Torodd Kinn & Trine Dahl. 2006. Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. • Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Gronemeyer, Claire. 1997. Evidentiality in Lithuanian. Working Papers, 93–112. Lund: Lund University. • Grossmann, Francis & AgnèsTutin. 2010. Evidential markers in French scientific writing: The case of the French verb voir. In Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova, eds. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 279-308. • Holvoet, Axel. 2007. Mood and Modality in the Baltic. Kraków: WydawnictwoUniversytetuJagiellońskiego. • Hyland, Ken. 2008. Disciplinary voices. Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction 1 (1), 5-22. • Lavine, James E. 2006. Is There a Passive Evidential Strategy in Lithuanian?. In Papers from the 42nd Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, edited by Jacqueline Bunting et al., 41–55. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. • Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2007. Commitment and subjectivity in the discourse of opinion columns andleading articles. A corpus study. RAELVolume: 1 Issue:Different Approaches to Newspaper OpinionDiscourse, 82-98. • Marín-Arrese,Juana I. 2009. Commitmentandsubjectivityinthediscourseof a judicialinquiry. InRaphaelSalkie, PierreBusuttil, JohanvanderAuwera, eds.ModalityinEnglish. Theoryand description. MoutondeGruyter: Berlin & NewYork. 237-268. • Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. • Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. • Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 349-357.

  25. References: 2 • Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Karin Aijmer. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty. A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. • Smetona, Antanas & AurelijaUsonienė. 2012. Autoriauspozicijosadverbialaiiradverbializacijalietuviųmokslokalboje. Kalbotyra2012, 64, 124-139. • Squartini, Mario. 2008. Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian. Linguistics 46 (5), 917-947. • Šinkūnienė, Jolanta. 2012. Adverbials as hedging devices in Lithuanian academic discourse: a cross-disciplinary study. In AurelijaUsonienė, NicoleNau& Ineta Dabašinskienė, eds. MultipleperspectivesinlinguisticresearchonBalticlanguages. CambridgeScholarsPublishing. 137-167. • Usonienė, Aurelija. 2001. Veiksmažodžiomatytikomplementotipai: formosirreikšmėssąveika. BaltisticaXXXVI (1): 115–124. • Usonienė, Aurelija. 2003. Extension of Meaning: Verbs of Perception in English and Lithuanian. In Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt & Ken Turner, eds.Meaningthroughlanguagecontrast: The Cambridge Papers. Vol. 1.JohnBenjamins Publishing Company. 193–220. • Tekorienė, Dalija. 1990. Bevardėsgiminėsbūdvardžiai. Vilnius: Mokslas. • Wiemer, Björn. 2006. Grammatical evidentiality in Lithuanian (a typological assessment). BaltisticaXLI (1): 33–49. • Wiemer, Björn. 2007. Lexical markers of evidentiality in Lithuanian Rivista di Linguistica19 (1): 173–208. • Wiemer, Björn. 2008. Lexikalische Markierungen evidenzieller Funktionen: zur Theoriebildung und empirischen Erforschung im Slavischen. In BjörnWiemer & Vladimir A. Plungjan, eds. LexikalischeEvidenzialitätsmarkerimSlavischen, 5-49. (= Wiener SlawistischerAlmanach, Sonderband 72.) • Wiemer, Björn. 2010. Lithuanian esą ̶ a heterosemic reportive marker in its contemporary stage. Baltic Linguistics 1: 245–308. • Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12 (1), 51-97. Stockholm, SLE Conference

More Related