Vol. 1:1 (2022) ► pp.67–120
Evidentiality in Finnish
On the communicative functions of the reportative evidential kuulemma and the dubitative marker muka
Evidentiality conveys information about the nature – and reliability – of the information source. This paper investigates the Finnish reportative evidential (hearsay particle) kuulemma and the dubitative particle muka (‘supposedly, allegedly, as if’). I propose a unifying analysis of two seemingly divergent uses of muka, and show how they contrast with kuulemma. My analysis builds on and extends recent work on reportatives regarding the distinction between the Animator (the speaker who utters the sentence) and the Principal (the person whose commitments are being expressed). Furthermore, I suggest that the dubitative muka may point to the existence of non-assertive discourse moves and has implications for our understanding of the discourse role of ‘Principal.’ This work also informs typological work on evidentials and related expressions by providing a systematic investigation of reportative and dubitative markers in a non-Indo-European language.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Initial theoretical background: Discourse updates
- 1.2On the discourse contribution of reportative evidentials
- 1.3Prior discourse-update based analyses of the discourse contribution of reportative evidentials
- 1.3.1Animator and principal
- 1.3.2 Faller (2019): Reportative evidentials as functions on speech act operators
- 1.3.3 Pancheva & Rudin (2019): Reportative evidentials as presuppositions
- 2.Features of the reportative kuulemma
- 2.1Absence of commitment to the reported proposition
- 2.2Existence of prior linguistic communicative event
- 2.3The reported proposition is at-issue
- 2.4The reported proposition can be added to the common ground
- 2.5The Finnish reportative kuulemma in light of current analyses
- 3.Features of the dubitative particle muka
- 3.1Use 1: Doubting the proposition
- 3.1.1Doubt: Existence of prior linguistic communicative event is possible but not required
- 3.1.2Doubt: Proposition being doubted is at-issue but cannot be added to Common Ground
- 3.2Use 2: Pretending the proposition is true
- 3.2.1Pretense: Existence of prior linguistic communicative event is possible but not required
- 3.2.2Pretense: Proposition is at-issue but does not get added to the Common Ground
- 3.3Summary of muka: Doubt and pretense
- 3.1Use 1: Doubting the proposition
- 4.Discussion and proposal
- 4.1The basic proposal for dubitative muka
- 4.2Broadening our view of ‘Principal’
- 4.3Dealing with make-believe contexts
- 5.Discussion and conclusions
- 5.1Bringing together the reportative evidential kuulemma and the dubitative muka
- 5.2Theoretical ramifications
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
-
References
This article is currently available as a sample article.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00004.kai