Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T19:15:58.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marking imprecision, conveying surprise: Like between hedging and mirativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2018

ANDREA BELTRAMA  and
EMILY A. HANINK
ANDREA BELTRAMA*
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz
EMILY A. HANINK*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Author’s address: University of Konstanz,Universitätstrasse 10,78464 Konstanz, Germanyandrea.beltrama@uni-konstanz.de
Author’s address: University of Chicago,1115 E. 58th Street,Chicago,IL 60637, USAeahanink@uchicago.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mirative expressions, which mark surprising information (DeLancey 1997), are often expressed through linguistic forms that are also used to encode other, seemingly unrelated, meanings – e.g. evidential markers that mark lack of direct evidence (Turkish: Slobin & Aksu 1982, Peterson 2010; Cheyenne: Rett & Murray 2013; Cuzco Quechua: Faller 2002; Ostyak: Nikolaeva 1999; among others). In this paper, we show that the English particle like features a parallel polysemy between a mirative use and its better-known hedging use, which expresses weakened commitment to the strict denotation of a linguistic expression. After presenting several diagnostics that point to a genuine empirical difference between the hedging and mirative functions of like, we propose that both uses widen the size of a contextually restricted set, admitting elements that were previously excluded. More specifically, hedging like expands the set of ‘similar enough’ interpretations that we can apply to a linguistic expression in a context, including interpretations that we would normally consider to be too different from the context at hand. Mirative like, on the other hand, expands the set of worlds that we are willing to consider as candidates for the actual world in the conversation, resulting in the inclusion of worlds that interlocutors have previously ruled out due to perceived outlandishness. We therefore suggest that the two uses are best treated as sharing a common semantic kernel, deriving hedging and mirativity as effects of the particular type of object to which like applies.

Keywords

common grounddiscourse particlesevidentialityhedgingmirativitypolysemy

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2019 , pp. 1 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We would like to thank Ryan Bochnak, V. Chaudhry, Eva Csipak, Regine Eckardt, Anastasia Giannakidou, E. Jamieson, Kelsey Kraus, Sven Lauer, Alda Mari, Muffy Siegel, Stepanie Solt, Jon Stevens, George Walkden, three anonymous reviewers for the Journal of Linguistics, as well as the audiences at LSA 90, CSSP 2017 and the University of Konstanz for their comments and feedback. All errors are our own.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Curt. 2013. Inherent and coerced gradability across categories: Manipulating pragmatic halos with sorta . In Snider, Todd (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 23), 81–96. doi:10.3765/salt.v23i0.2667.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano & Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. Focus fronting and its implicatures. In Aboh, E. (ed.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2013: Selected papers from Going Romance, 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo & Lauer, Sven. 2011. Performative verbs and performative acts. In Ingo, Reich et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, 149–164. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1986. Intonation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2005. Like: Syntax and development. University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Davidson, Kate. 2015. Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 38.6, 477–520.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–2012. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1.1, 33–52.Google Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron. 2016. Variant-centered variation and the like conspiracy. Linguistic Variation 16.2, 221–246.Google Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron & Maddeaux, Ruth. 2017. Is Like like Like?: Evaluating the same variant across multiple variables. Linguistic Vanguard 3.1.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2000. Santa Barbara Corpus of American Spoken English, Part i. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka & Bruce, Kim. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27.1, 81–118.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Macedonian, Albanian and Bulgarian. In Nichols, Johanna & Chafe, Wallace (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 168–187. NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22.4, 367–421.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2015. The subjunctive as evaluation and nonveridicality. In Blaszack, J., Giannakidou, A., Klimek-Jankowska, D. & Mygdalski, K. (eds.), Mood, aspect, modality revisited: New answers to old questions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Mari, Alda. 2016. Emotive predicates and the subjunctive: A flexible mood OT account based on (non)veridicality. In Nadine, Bade, Berezovskaya, Polina & Schölle, Anthea (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20. Tuebingen: University of Tuebingen.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra & Pianesi, Fabio. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. 1969. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In Davis, J. W. & Hockney, D. J. (eds.), Philosophical logic, 21–45. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Smith, Sara W.. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’. Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds.), Discourse markers. Description and theory, 171–201. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klecha, Peter. 2014. Bridging the Divide: Scalarity and modality. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In von Stechow, Arnim & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Approximate interpretations of number words: A case for strategic communication. In Krämer, I., Bouma, G. & Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 111–126. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9, 1–40.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75.3, 522–551.Google Scholar
Lauer, Sven. 2012. On the pragmatics of pragmatic slack. In Guevara, Ana Aguilar, Chernilovskaya, Anna & Nouwen, Rick (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, 389–402. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2009. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3.1, 91–110.Google Scholar
Morzycki, Marcin. 2011. Metalinguistic comparison in an alternative semantics for imprecision. Natural Language Semantics 19, 39–86.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. The semantics of Northern Khandy evidentials. Journal Societé Finno Ougrinne 88, 131–159.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. To appear. Attitude verbs. Invited contribution for L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann & T. E. Zimmermann (eds.), Companion to Semantics. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2010. Examining the mirative and nonliteral uses of evidentials. In Evidence from evidentials, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2011. Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 34, 411–442.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2012. Miratives across constructions and languages. Paper presented at CUSP.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2013. Similatives and the argument structure of verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31, 1101–1137.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica & Murray, Sarah E.. 2013. A semantic account of mirative evidentials. In Snider, Todd (ed.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 23, 453–472. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, C.. 2004. On yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.4, 609–658.Google Scholar
Sassoon, Galit & Zevakhina, Natalia. 2012. Granularity shifting: Experimental evidence from degree modifiers. In Chereches, A. (ed.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 22, 226–246. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common discourse particles. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanon, Benny. 1976. On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language 14, 247–249.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad & Malcom, Ian. 2003. The pragmatic marker like in English teen talk: Australian Aboriginal usage. Pragmatics and Cognition 11.2, 327–344. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.11.2.07sha.Google Scholar
Siegel, Muffy. 2002. Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics 19.2, 35–71.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. & Aksu, A.. 1982. Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In Hopper, P. (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and semantics: 9, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 701–721.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craige & Simons, Mandy. 2013. Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89.1, 66–109.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella & Portner, Paul. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax–semantics interface. Language 79.1, 39–81.Google Scholar