Grounds for commitment
Grounds for commitment
复制标题
承诺的理由
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Oliver Northrup
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oliver Northrup
摘要：本文通过整合证据性、语用话语粒子和说话者偏见标记等方面的研究，提出了一种追踪非争议话语贡献的新方法，这些研究都关注说话者与其在对话中表达的信息之间关系的现象。我认为，每一种情况下的总体话语效应都应该根据以各种证据为基础的承诺来捕捉。这些基础来自于说话者的个人信仰、对话者的话语承诺以及其他基于语境的来源。它们有一个共同的目的，那就是宣传唤起它们的承诺的可靠性。本论文的主体从几个经验领域为这种方法提供了论据。其中最主要的是日语的句末句助词和英语的偏颇极性疑问句。对于日语来说，我认为粒子yo， ne，以及它们的组合yyo表明了说话者的信念，即与对话者相比，他有相对的权威来支持带有粒子的话语的内容。这些简单的条件，编码在证据库中，与话语的默认效果相互作用，得出带有粒子标记的话语的总话语效果，包括这些粒子似乎限制可能的恰当反应的方式，以及为什么它们在某些句子形式中不被允许，而在其他句子形式中不被允许。对于英语偏题，我认为根据问题的形式，高否定极性问题（HNPQs）和两种附加疑问句（tq）很弱地使说话者给出一个或两个答案。这些薄弱的承诺可以基于他们的默认证据基础的先前或当前版本，其中包含他们的私人信念和任何公共背景证据的总和。弱承诺的概念是根据证据基础对未来话语运动的变化的抵抗来定义的。在这两个经验领域中，新的数据被用来与以前的文献进行对比。这项调查的结果有三个方面。首先，我认为，与之前的文献相比，由于有了新的数据，上述每种现象——以及其他现象，包括英语极性粒子和新加坡口语英语（Singlish）粒子“啊”——在本文提出的个人分析中得到了更好的实证报道。其次，由于每个解决方案的一般架构是共享的，因此本文提出的话语模型允许对这些现象的形式语用效果进行更简洁的解释。第三，通过强调这些领域之间的共性及其与证据性的关系，该模型可以更深入地了解语言话语的组织方式，默认和非默认话语之间的差异，更广泛地说，语言使用的形式语用学和一般推理之间的区别。
Author(s): Northrup, Oliver Burton | Advisor(s): Farkas, Donka | Abstract: This dissertation proposes a novel approach to tracking not-at-issue contributions to discourse by bringing together several strands of research concerning evidentiality, illocutionary discourse particles, and speaker bias marking, all of which concern phenomena that indicate the relationships between speakers and the information they express in conversation. I argue that the overall discourse effects in each case should be captured in terms of commitments that are conditioned on various evidential bases. These bases derive from the speaker's private beliefs, his interlocutors' discourse commitments, and other contextually-rooted sources. They share the common purpose of publicizing the reliability of the commitments that invoke them.The body of this dissertation provides arguments for this approach from several empirical domains. Chief among these are the sentence-final discourse particles of Japanese, and biased polar questions in English. For Japanese, I argue that the particles yo, ne, and their combination yone publicize the speaker's beliefs about his relative authority to sponsor the content of the particle-marked utterance, compared to that of his interlocutors. These simple conditions, encoded in the evidential base, interact with the default effects of an utterance to derive the total discourse effects of the particle-marked utterances, including the ways that these particles seem to limit possible felicitous responses, and why they are disallowed with certain sentence forms but not others. For English biased questions, I argue that high negation polar questions (HNPQs) and two kinds of tag questions (TQs) weakly commit the speaker to one or both answers, depending on the question's form. These weak commitments can be based on either a prior or current version of their default evidential base, which contains the totality of their private beliefs and any public contextual evidence. The notion of weak commitment is defined in terms of the evidential base's resistance to change in light of future discourse moves. %With both empirical domains, novel data is brought to bear to contrast the analysis advanced here to previous literature.The results of this investigation are threefold. First, I argue thanks to novel data that each of the above phenomena---as well as others including English polarity particles and the Singapore Colloquial English (Singlish) particle lah—receive superior empirical coverage under the individual analyses advanced here, compared to previous literature. Second, because the general architecture of each solution is shared, the discourse model advanced here allows for a more parsimonious explanation of the formal pragmatic effects of these phenomena. Third, by highlighting the commonalities among these domains and their relationship to evidentiality, the model allows for greater insight into the way that linguistic discourse is organized, the differences between default and non-default utterances, and more broadly, the distinction between formal pragmatics and general reasoning about language use.