Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert
Erfordert eine Authentifizierung
Didn't you know? Mirativity does exist!
-
Kees Hengeveld
und
Hella Olbertz
Veröffentlicht/Copyright:
30. Dezember 2012
Abstract
This article argues, contra Hill (this volume), that mirativity is an independent linguistic category. It also argues, contra DeLancey (1997), that this category should be defined not only in terms of newsworthiness for the speaker but also in terms of newsworthiness for the addressee, and that expressions of mirativity do not necessarily have an evidential component. These claims are supported by examples of mirative expressions in a number of languages from different genetic stocks. Finally, the article suggests an explanation for the fact that in many languages evidentiality and mirativity are indeed expressed by the same linguistic means.
Published Online: 2012-12-30
Published in Print: 2012-11-27
© 2012 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.
Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Masthead
- Debate 1: Prosodic typology defended - Introduction
- In defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman and Venditti
- Debate 2: MIR revisited - Introduction
- “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects
- The essence of mirativity
- Didn't you know? Mirativity does exist!
- Perhaps mirativity is phlogiston, but admirativity is perfect: On Balkan evidential strategies
- Still mirative after all these years
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Masthead
- Debate 1: Prosodic typology defended - Introduction
- In defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman and Venditti
- Debate 2: MIR revisited - Introduction
- “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects
- The essence of mirativity
- Didn't you know? Mirativity does exist!
- Perhaps mirativity is phlogiston, but admirativity is perfect: On Balkan evidential strategies
- Still mirative after all these years
