4 research outputs found
ΠΠ± ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΡ , Π²ΡΠ΄Π²ΠΈΠ³Π°ΡΡΠΈΡ ΡΠΎ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅, ΡΠΎ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π² Π±ΠΎΠ»Π³Π°ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ΅
The article deals with tip effects between evidential and epistemic components in the meaning potential of evidential markers in Bulgarian, the focus being on sentential adverbs with inferential functions. We justify (and start with) the following assumptions: (i) for any unit we should distinguish its stable semantic meaning from its pragmatic potential which can be favored (or disfavored) by appropriate discourse conditions; (ii) there is a trade off between evidential and epistemic meaning components that are related to each other on the basis of mutual or one-sided implicatures; (iii) one-sided implicatures occur with certain hearsay markers whose epistemic implicatures can be captured as Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCIs). On this basis, we show that (iv) GCIs work also with inferential markers; they can be classified depending on which component (the inferential or the epistemic one) can be downgraded more easily. A crucial factor favoring the inferential meaning is a perceptual basis of the inference. In general, (v) the more complicated the reconstruction of the cognitive (or communicative) basis leading to an inference, the clearer the epistemic function emerges while the evidential function remains in the background, and vice versa. The study is corpus-driven and also includes an attempt at classifying micro- and macro-contextual conditions that (dis)favor a highlighting of the evidential function.Π‘ΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π° ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΠΌ, ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½Π°Ρ Π°ΠΊΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡ ΡΠΎ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ, ΡΠΎ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½ΡΠ° Π² ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Π΅ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π³Π°ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ°. Π‘ΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π½Π°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡ
Ρ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ, ΠΌΡ ΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π΅ΠΌΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ»ΠΊΠΈ: (i) Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΊΠ°ΠΆΠ΄ΠΎΠΉ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΡ ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΎΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ Π΅Ρ ΡΡΡΠΎΠΉΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡ ΠΏΡΠ°Π³ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Π°, Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡ (ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΡΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡ) ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ; (ii) ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½ΡΡ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π΄ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΎ Π²ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΡΡ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ Π΄ΡΡΠ³Π° ΠΈΠ· ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°Π½ΡΡ, ΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΎ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ, ΡΠΎ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½ΡΠ° ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ Π΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΡΡ; (iii) ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡ Ρ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ, ΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ
ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡ Π±ΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΡΡΡ (Generalized Conversational Implicatures, GCIs). ΠΠ° ΡΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΌΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π΅ΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ (iv) GCIs ΡΡΠ°Π±Π°ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π² Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ; ΠΎΠ½ΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡ Π±ΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Ρ Π² ΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ΅ΠΌ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠ· ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² (ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ) Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π²Π΅ΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ ΠΏΠΎ Π΄Π°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ. Π‘ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ, ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡΠΈΠΌ Π²ΡΠ΄Π²ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½ΡΠ°, ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π°Ρ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ. Π ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠΌ, (v) ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½Π΅Π΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΡ ΠΊΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ (ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ) ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ, Π²Π΅Π΄ΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΠΊ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΡΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½Π΅ΠΌ ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½Π΅ ΡΠΊΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΡ, ΡΠΎΠ³Π΄Π° ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½Π°Ρ (ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π°Ρ) ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡΡ Π² ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈ, ΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΠΎΡ. ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ·Π½Π°ΡΡ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ, ΠΈ ΠΎΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΏΡΡΠΊΡ ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎ- ΠΈ ΠΌΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ°, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΡΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ
On Conditions Instantiating Tip Effects of Epistemic and Evidential Meanings in Bulgarian
The article deals with tip effects between evidential and epistemic components in the meaning potential of evidential markers in Bulgarian, the focus being on sentential adverbs with inferential functions. We justify (and start with) the following assumptions: (i) for any unit we should distinguish its stable semantic meaning from its pragmatic potential which can be favored (or disfavored) by appropriate discourse conditions; (ii) there is a trade off between evidential and epistemic meaning components that are related to each other on the basis of mutual or one-sided implicatures; (iii) one-sided implicatures occur with certain hearsay markers whose epistemic implicatures can be captured as Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCIs). On this basis, we show that (iv) GCIs work also with inferential markers; they can be classified depending on which component (the inferential or the epistemic one) can be downgraded more easily. A crucial factor favoring the inferential meaning is a perceptual basis of the inference. In general, (v) the more complicated the reconstruction of the cognitive (or communicative) basis leading to an inference, the clearer the epistemic function emerges while the evidential function remains in the background, and vice versa. The study is corpus-driven and also includes an attempt at classifying micro- and macro-contextual conditions that (dis)favor a highlighting of the evidential function