Spatial Cases in Udihe: A Corpus Analysis

Perekhvalskaya, Elena

doi:10.1163/9789004523944_004

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In (7a), the content of the report follows the matrix clause; in (7b), the same two parts occur in the reverse order; and (7c) is a typologically rare framing construction where exactly the same verb appears both before and after the report (this construction is used to report either speech or thought, cf. the example with reported speech in 8) (Perekhvalskaya 2020).…”

Section: Lexically Specialized Expressionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

2 The morphosyntax of reported speech and reported thought: A preliminary survey

Nikitina,

Aplonova

2023

The Grammar of Thinking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses the relationship between the reporting of speech and the reporting of thought based on a set of annotated data from several typologically diverse languages. The context-based approach we adopt allows us to explore the relationship between reported speech and reported thought without relying on specific lexical or constructional cues.We identify three types of relationship between reported speech and reported thought. First, in all our languages, reported speech constructions can be recruited for the expression of reported thought; such uses can only be identified based on context. Second, in some of the languages, we find expressions that are best described in terms of speech-to-thought coercion: in a construction normally associated with reported speech, a verb of thinking or another lexical marker triggers a reported thought interpretation. Such an interpretation is sometimes at odds with the construction's original properties, since situations of thinking and speaking differ in a number of linguistically relevant ways.For example, situations of thinking do not involve an addressee, and that difference accounts for the seemingly superfluous use, in some languages, of expressions such as "think inside one's head" or "think to oneself", which serve to reconcile the construction's argument properties (an implied addressee) with its coerced interpretation. Speech-to-thought coercion also explains why, despite the absence of an addressee in the verb's argument structure, it is possible to refer to addressees within thought reports. Finally, in some languages, reported thought constructions are attested that have no equivalent among expressions of reported speech.We conclude, based on the structural diversity of reported thought expressions, that reported thought cannot be treated as a uniform cross-linguistic concept in a way similar to reported speech (Spronck & Nikitina 2019), and that conceptualization of thought processes varies across languages in ways that make direct comparison impossible.Acknowledgements: This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 758232). We would like to thank our fellow project members for their assistance, in particular Elena Perekhvalskaya, Abbie Hantgan-Sonko, Lacina Silué, and Guillaume Guitang. We are also grateful to our language consultants and assistants: Alexander Savelyev, Fizaliya Makhianova, and Sekou Coulibali. Moreover, we would like to thank Valentin Vydrin for his comments on the Bambara data.

show abstract

Section: Lexically Specialized Expressionsmentioning

confidence: 99%