Abstract
This article develops an account of the discourse updates contributed by utterances of declarative sentences with the Cuzco Quechua reportative. The challenge posed by such utterances is that the speaker does not need to be committed to the at-issue proposition φ and may even deny its truth. They are therefore not assertions. Yet φ can behave in many ways like an asserted proposition in discourse: it can be used to answer questions, link to the discourse with veridical rhetorical relations, and, if accepted by the interlocutors, be subsequently presupposed. The proposed semantics for the reportative assigns the commitment to φ to a third-party principal instead of to the discourse participant producing the utterance, leaving them free to disagree with φ. However, if they do not disagree, they will be understood as intending to propose it to the common ground. This, it is argued, is due to the Collaborative Principle, a pragmatic principle that requires discourse participants to provide evidence of any discrepancy in commitments. The analysis is implemented in a modified version of the discourse framework of Farkas & Bruce 2010. EARLY ACCESS
Highlights
This article proposes a discourse-based solution to the puzzle in (1).Martina Faller (1) a
The paper argues that a sharp distinction between at-issue and asserted content should be drawn; that declarative sentence type should be associated only with the speech act of presentation, from which assertion is derived by default, and that evidential commitments should be added to the speech act type of assertion
This paper addressed the puzzle in (1), namely that RDSs are in some cases used with Absence of Commitment and in others with the Intention to Resolve the Question under Discussion (QUD)
Summary
This article proposes a discourse-based solution to the puzzle in (1). Martina Faller (1) a. Absence of Commitment to φ : In Cuzco Quechua (CQ), a speaker uttering a declarative sentence with the reportative evidential does not need to be committed to the reported proposition φ in its scope Such utterances are not assertions of φ. The paper argues that a sharp distinction between at-issue and asserted content should be drawn; that declarative sentence type should be associated only with the speech act of presentation, from which assertion is derived by default, and that evidential commitments should be added to the speech act type of assertion These aspects of the analysis are needed independently of reportatives, for example in the analysis of propositional attitudes and hedges.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
