|
|
 E-mail this message to a friend
|
|
Title:
|
Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan
|
|
Author:
|
Edward Garrett
|
|
Email:
|
click here to access email
|
|
Degree Awarded:
|
University of California, Los Angeles
, Department of Linguistics
|
|
Degree Date:
|
2001
|
|
Linguistic Subfield(s):
|
Philosophy of Language
Pragmatics
Semantics
|
|
Subject Language(s):
|
Tibetan
|
|
Director(s):
|
Dominique Sportiche
Carson Schütze
|
|
|
Abstract:
|
|
This dissertation examines the three major evidential categories in Standard Tibetan: ego, direct, and indirect. Indirect is argued to be a performative epistemic modal; its performativity accounts for its highly restricted distribution. Direct is argued to be complex, consisting of a demonstrative component, which requires that the marked situation be stage-level, and a pragmatic component, which requires that the marked situation have been observed. Evidence from conditionals and from the Amdo variety of Tibetan show that these two components can be disentangled from each other. Ego is argued to be a morphologically zero, default, 'elsewhere' case, which indicates either immediate or groundless knowledge.
Aside from its contribution to Tibeto-Burman linguistics, this dissertation touches on various theoretically important issues in pragmatics and the philosophy of language. First, in discussing ego, it is argued that a property-based semantic view of attitudes de se has no advantage over a proposition-based pragmatic theory. Special uses of ego with names de se and performatives highlight this point.
Second, it is suggested that questions be analyzed as in the traditional answer set approach to the semantics of questions; but rather than taking a question to denote a set of propositions, it is argued that a question should denote a set of assertions instead.
Third, a new division among conditionals is proposed. Based primarily on the behavior of Tibetan evidential constructions in conditional protases, but also on the behavior of English 'will in the same position, a category of 'interactional' conditionals is introduced. Interactional conditionals differ from 'hypothetical' conditionals in that the speaker does not simply represent the protasis as unknown, but as something which can and should be immediately verified or countered by another discourse participant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Updated: 25-Nov-2009
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
