Cover not available
Part of
Particles in German, English, and Beyond
Edited by Remus Gergel, Ingo Reich and Augustin Speyer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 224] 2022
► pp. 355–380

Chapter 13
Evidentiality and the QUD

A study of talán ‘perhaps’ in Hungarian declaratives and interrogatives

| Hungarian Research Centre , Budapest | Eötvös Loránd University , Budapest

The aim of the paper is to sketch a unified account of the denotation of talán ‘perhaps’ in Hungarian, which appears in declaratives and polar interrogatives encoding assertions and questions. It is suggested for the first time that talán is not only an inferential or conjectural evidential, but also makes reference to the current question under discussion. The account explains some interpretational effects of talán, including the absence of the “interrogative flip” or the obligatory rhetorical question readings of polar interrogatives without constituent focus, which are discussed here for the first time.

Keywords: conjectural evidential, epistemic modal, interrogative flip, question under discussion, rhetorical question
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Talán in falling declaratives
    • 2.1Previous literature on talán : Epistemic possibility and inference
    • 2.2Declaratives with talán in context
    • 2.3Towards a formal account
  • 3. Talán and questions in Hungarian: Background
    • 3.1Previous work on talán in questions
    • 3.2Forms encoding question acts in Hungarian
  • 4. Talán in ∧-declaratives
  • 5. Talán in ∧-interrogatives
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.13gyu
References
Beaver, David I. and Brady Z. Clark
2008 Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus Determines Meaning. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bende-Farkas, Ágnes
2007 “Adverbs of Quantification, It-Clefts and Hungarian Focus.” Pp. 317–48 in Adverbs and Adverbial Adjuncts at the Interfaces, edited by K. É. Kiss. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2003 “On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents.” Linguistics and Philosophy 26:511–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona
2008 Grammatikalizáció. [Grammaticalization] Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 158. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine
2004 “Particles and Strategies.” Talk, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 17 May 2004.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine and Andrea Beltrama
2019 “Evidentials and Questions.” Pp. 121–55 in Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12, edited by C. Piñón. Paris: CSSP.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine
2020 “Conjectural Questions: The Case of German Verb-Final Wohl Questions.” Semantics and Pragmatics 13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1998 “Identificational Focus Versus Information Focus”. Language 74:245–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Focussing as Predication.” Pp. 169–93 in The Architecture of Focus, edited by V. Molnár and S. Winkler. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina
2002 “Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Gärtner, Hans-Martin and Beáta Gyuris
2012 “Pragmatic Markers in Hungarian: Some Introductory Remarks.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(4):387–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof
1984 “Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Gunlogson, Christine
2003 True to Form. Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel
2015 Use-Conditional Meaning. Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel, Katharina Hartmann, Lisa Matthewson
2020 “Verum Focus Is Verum, Not Focus. Cross-Linguistic Evidence.”. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1):1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta
2012 “The Expression of Information Structure in Hungarian.” Pp. 159–86 in The Expression of Information Structure, edited by M. Krifka and R. Musan. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “New Perspectives on Bias in Polar Questions: A Study of Hungarian -R.” International Review of Pragmatics 9(1):1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Thoughts on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Rising Declaratives in English and Rise-Fall Declaratives in Hungarian.” Pp. 247–80 in K + K = 120. Papers Dedicated to László Kálmán and András Kornai on the Occasion of Their 60th Birthdays, edited by B. Gyuris, K. Mády and G. Recski. Budapest: MTA Research Institute for Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles
1973 “Questions in Montague English.” Foundations of Language 10:41–53.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia
2007 “Separating “Focus Movement” from Focus.” Pp. 108–45 in Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, edited by S. Karimi, V. Samiian and W. K. Wilkins. Amsterdam & Philadelpia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kálmán, László
1985 “Word Order in Neutral Sentences.” Pp. 13–23 in Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 1, edited by I. Kenesei. Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
ed. 2001 Magyar leíró nyelvtan. I. Mondattan [Hungarian Descriptive Grammar. I. Syntax]. Budapest: TINTA Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1989 “Logikus-e a magyar szórend?.” [“Is Hungarian Word Order Logical?”] Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XVII :105–52.Google Scholar
1994 “Subordinate Clauses.” Pp. 275–354 in The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, edited by F. Kiefer and K. É. Kiss. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc
1981 “What Is Possible in Hungarian?” Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31(1–4):147–85.Google Scholar
1988 “Modal Particles as Discourse Markers in Questions.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38:107–25.Google Scholar
2005 Lehetőség és szükségszerűség. Tanulmányok a nyelvi modalitás köréből. [Possibility and Necessity. Studies on Modality in Language.] Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
2018 “Two Kinds of Epistemic Modality in Hungarian.” Pp. 281–95 in Epistemic Modalities and Evidentiality in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Z. Guentchéva. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kugler, Nóra
2003 A módosítószók funkciói. [The Functions of Modifier Words.] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2008 “Az episztemikus modalitást és evidencialitást jelölő módosítószók funkciói és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó műveletek.” [“Functions of the Modifier Words Marking Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality, and the Operations Connected to Them.”] Pp. 269–307 in Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXII. Tanulmányok a funkcionális nyelvészet köréből, edited by N. G. Tolcsvai and M. Ladányi. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2010 “Modal Adverbs in Hungarian (the Case of Talán ‘Perhaps’).” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57:75–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert
1996 Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lim, Dong Sik
2011 “Evidentials in Interrogatives.” Pp. 419–33 in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Vol. 15, edited by I. Reich. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2005 The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007 “The Expressive Dimension.” Theoretical Linguistics 33:165–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985 “Association with Focus.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
1992 “A Theory of Focus Interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2012a “Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics.” Semantics and Pragmatics 5:Article 6: 1–69. Originally published as Roberts, Craige 1996 “Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics.” OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49:91–136.Google Scholar
2012b “Information Structure: Afterword.” Semantics and Pragmatics 5:Article 7: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Speech Acts in Discourse Context.” Pp. 317–59 in New Work on Speech Acts, edited by D. Fogal, D. Harris and M. Moss. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd and Elisabeth Norcliffe
2017 “Evidentiality and Interrogativity.” Lingua 186/187:120–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheil, Christine M.
2016 “Scottish Gaelic Clefts: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret and Carol Tenny
2003 “Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles.” Pp. 315–44 in Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1, edited by A.-M. Di Sciullo. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
1978 “Assertion.” Pp. 315–32 in Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, edited by P. Cole. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Daisuke
2018 “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Modal Adverbs: Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification of Perhaps .” Journal of Pragmatics 205:40–53.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1994 “All Quantifiers Are Not Equal: The Case of Focus.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42:171–87.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta
2003 “A Stress-Based Approach to the Syntax of Hungarian Focus.“ The Linguistic Review 20:37–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leusen, Noor and László Kálmán
1993 “The Interpretation of Free Focus.” In ILLC Prepublication Series. ILLC Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Varga, László
2010 “Boundary Tones and the Lack of Intermediate Phrase in Hungarian (Revisiting the Hungarian Calling Contour).” Pp. 1–27 in The Even Yearbook Vol. 9. Budapest: Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
Velleman, Leah and David Beaver
2016 “Question-Based Models of Information Structure.” Pp. 86–107 in The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, edited by C. Féry and S. Ishihara. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte
2008 “Discourse Particles in the Left Periphery.” Pp. 208–39 in Dislocated Elements in Discourse, edited by P. Cook, B. Shaer, W. Frey and C. Maienborn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar