Larraitz Zubeldia - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Larraitz Zubeldia

Euskera ikerketa aldizkaria

'Omen'en esanahiaren eta erabileraren berri ematea dugu helburu lan honetan. saiatuko gara argudi... more 'Omen'en esanahiaren eta erabileraren berri ematea dugu helburu lan honetan. saiatuko gara argudiatzen 'omen' duen esaldiaren hiztunak adierazten duela proposizio bat hiztuna ez den beste batek esana edo baieztua dela, edo hari entzuna edo irakurria (ez ikusia). Horixe du bere esanahia, eta, horri jarraiki, erakutsiko dugu orain arteko gramatika eta hiztegiek 'omen'i lotu izan dioten ziurtasunik eza ez dela haren esanahiaren parte, baizik eta hiztunak eragin dezakeen inplikatura, 'omen'dun esaldi bat eginez. esango dugu, baita ere, 'omen'i ematen dizkioten 'parece (que)' edo 'il paraît (que)' gisako baliokideak ez direla bereak, baizik eta 'bide'renak. Horretarako, orain arteko gramatika eta hiztegiek esandako gauza batzuk baztertu eta beste batzuk zehaztu beharko ditugu. egungo semantika eta pragmatikako bereizketa nagusiak hartuko ditugu oinarri eta bidelagun horiek xehetzeko. Hitz-gakoak: esanahia, edukia, esandakoa, inplikatura, proposizio-edukia. el objetivo de este trabajo es definir el significado y explicar el uso de la partícula 'omen' del euskara. intentaremos argumentar que el hablante, mediante una proferencia con 'omen', expresa que una proposición es dicha o afirmada por otro hablante, o bien escuchada o leída a otro hablante. Ése es su significado, e intentaremos demostrar que el contenido de incertidumbre que las gramáticas y diccionarios han asociado a 'omen' no es parte de su significado, sino la implicatura que puede producir el hablante mediante la realización de una proferencia con 'omen'. Veremos también que los equivalentes como 'parece (que)' o 'il paraît (que)' asignados a 'omen' no son sus equivalentes, sino de la partícula 'bide'. Para ello, tendremos que descartar algunas de las cosas propuestas acerca de 'omen' por las gramáticas y diccionarios publicados hasta hoy, y precisar algunas otras. Partiremos de las principales distinciones de la semántica y pragmática, con el fin de que nos ayuden a refinar lo dicho hasta ahora acerca de 'omen'.

Journal of Pragmatics, 2012

This book is an indication of the growing strength of the relatively new field of experimental pr... more This book is an indication of the growing strength of the relatively new field of experimental pragmatics. Following Noveck and Sperber (2004) and Sauerland and Yatsushiro (2009), it is the third book devoted to the presentation of experimental work which bears directly on theoretical issues in pragmatics and semantics. The book Experimental Pragmatics, edited by Ira Noveck and Dan Sperber, laid down the basis of this new field, although related pioneering work had already been conducted in the 70s (Clark, 1979 or Gibbs, 1979, for example). This new discipline has its roots in the interaction of pragmatics and experimental psychology (mainly psycholinguistics, but psychology of reasoning as well). Pragmatics and psycholinguistics share a common focus, namely, how our knowledge of language and context allows us to understand each other's utterances. However, researchers within the two disciplines did not collaborate with each other, until they realized the benefits they would gain by confronting theoretical analysis with experimental testing. As Noveck and Sperber (2004:9) state, for pragmatics the gain is twofold: first, experimental evidence can be used to confirm or reject a hypothesis, instead of just following intuitions (the only source of evidence for many philosophers of language and linguists); second, testing experimentally requires a ''higher degree of theoretical explicitness'', often requiring the revision and refinement of theories. Experimental psycholinguistics, on the other hand, takes advantage of the competencies, concepts and theories developed in pragmatics ''in order to better describe and explain a range of phenomena (.. .) and to develop new experimental paradigms'' (Noveck and Sperber, 2004). The contributions to this first volume showed that many varied issues can be clarified and deepened when subjected to experimental pragmatics: understanding definite descriptions, indirect speech acts, what is said vs. what is meant, metaphors, processing of quantifiers, and Scalar Implicatures (SIs), among others. And all these can be investigated using different experimental methods. Although the field of experimental pragmatics has only recently been established, many studies and articles have been published since then, and some workshops and conferences (and some panels and sessions) have been organized; for example, the biennial Experimental Pragmatic Conference, organized by EURO-XPRAG. Within only a few years experimental pragmatics has become a very active field; and it keeps growing and growing, as the present volume shows. This book contains versions of ten presentations given by 16 contributors at the workshop Experimental Pragmatics/ Semantics, held in February 2008, at the University of Bamberg, Germany. As the editors make clear in their introduction, the problem of the boundary between semantics and pragmatics is the issue that informs all contributions to the volume; a problem that has raised and still raises considerable debate, including the question of how much pragmatics influences semantics, and the role of experimental pragmatics/semantics in resolving this question. Several other dichotomies have arisen around this distinction: 'what is said' vs. 'what is implicated', Neogricean vs. Relevance theory, minimalism vs. contextualism, etc. The main topic of the book being the distinction between semantics and pragmatics, the reader would expect more papers than, in fact, are directly related to that issue (i.e. the works of Liedtke and Paltiel-Gedalyovich). Still, all contributions are, to some extent, related to the debate. The contribution of experimental pragmatics to pragmatic and semantic theory is discussed from a number of different angles. First, the chapters examine a wide range of issues: pragmatic enrichment, SIs (still one of the most important topics in experimental pragmatics), language impairment, ambiguity, focus, coordination, objects and 'what is said'. Second, a variety of experimental methods is employed: Truth/Felicity-Value Judgment Tasks, questionnaires, eyetracking, picture selection tasks, ERPs and conversations between children and adult examiners. It should be noted that while some authors provide many methodological details (Müller, Schulz and Hoḧle, for instance), which are very helpful in making the reader aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each method, some others are not as precise.

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 2022

Language, 2014

The aim of the present work is to provide evidence for two debates in the formal literature on ev... more The aim of the present work is to provide evidence for two debates in the formal literature on evidentiality: (i) whether the evidential content of evidential elements is in the scope of (certain) operators and (ii) whether the evidential content can be directly assented/rejected or challenged. We argue, based on the main semantic and pragmatic properties of the Basque reportative particle omen that, on the one hand, the evidential content can have narrow scope within certain operators, and, on the other hand, it can be rejected (contrary to what is claimed to happen crosslinguistically). Based on these facts, we contend that the role of omen is best interpreted as contributing to the truth-conditions or the propositional content of the utterance, and not to its illocutionary force or as a presupposition trigger. We contend that, by using omen, the speaker asserts that the reported proposition has been stated (or written) by someone other than herself. Omen has no other semantic meaning. In our view, the speaker's expression of uncertainty often attributed to omen, if it is present, belongs to the pragmatic content of the utterance, and, more precisely, is a generalized conversational implicature of the omen-utterance. Grice's (1967a/1989, 1967b/1989) cancellability 'test' and the data from several corpora support our conclusion. The speaker's expression of uncertainty is explicitly or contextually cancellable, and we found many examples in which the speaker's certainty on either the truth or falsity of the reported proposition is clear. Besides that, inspired by Korta & Perry 2011a, we distinguish between three contents, or sets of truth-conditions, involved in an omen-utterance, relative to the possible status of the original speaker. Moreover, the results of another test (which can be called the reportability test) show that speakers tend not to use omen to report non-literal contents (particularized conversational implicatures and presuppositions, at least). * * Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, in Vilnius, the ILCLI Seminar on Language and Communication, the pragmatics reading group of the Linguistics department at UCL, the conference The nature of evidentiality, in Leiden, and the 2nd IIFs-ILCLI Workshop on Logic, Cognition and Language, Mexico City. We would like to thank

The aim of this paper is to shed some light on the meaning and use of the Basque reportative part... more The aim of this paper is to shed some light on the meaning and use of the Basque reportative particle ‘omen’. We want to show that, contrary to what most Basque dictionaries and grammars suggest, beyond i-ts reportative aspect, the meaning of ‘omen’ does not include neither (i) the evidential meaning that would make it synonymous with the particle ‘bide’ nor (ii) the expression of doubt or uncertainty about the truth of the proposition on which ‘omen’ operates. We will also try to account for the particular behavior of ‘omen’ as a reportative particle. To deal with these issues, we will make use of basic tene-ts of contemporary semantics and pragmatics, distinguishing among the meaning of sentences containing ‘omen’, the content(s) of utterances of those sentences, and the eventual conversational implicatures generated by those utterances. We will also briefly compare our view with Faller’s (2002) speech-act theoretic account of a similar particle in Cuzco Quechua.

... In B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (arg.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston Univer... more ... In B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (arg.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on language development, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 453-463. NOVECK,IRA; GENNARO CHIERCHIA; FLORELLE CHEVAUX; RAPHAëLLE GUELMINGER & ...

The expression of the source of information is called ‘evidentiality’ in the literature. It is qu... more The expression of the source of information is called ‘evidentiality’ in the literature. It is quite a new field in linguistics, since it was mentioned first at the beginning of the 20th century. Later on, many works have been published, from different perspectives. Nevertheless, many of them have focused on an issue: the relation evidentiality has with another linguistic fields, and especially the relation it has with modality. We will also focus on the same matter, namely on the relation between evidentiality and modality, collecting different points of view.

The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the main semantic and pragmatic prop... more The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the main semantic and pragmatic properties of the Basque reportative particle ‘omen’. I contend that by using ‘omen’ the speaker states that the reported proposition has been said (or written) by someone other than herself. ‘Omen’ has no other semantic meaning. In my view, the speaker’s expression of uncertainty often attached to ‘omen’, if present, belongs to the pragmatic content of the utterance, and, more precisely, it is a generalized conversational implicature of the ‘omen’-utterance. Grice’s (1967a, 1967b) cancellability ‘test’ and the data from several corpora support this conclusion. I will also contend that the role of ‘omen’ is best interpreted as contributing to the truth-conditions or propositional content of the utterance, and not to its illocutionary force or presuppositions. Two tests support this conclusion. Besides that, I distinguish between (at least) three contents in an ‘omen’-utterance, based in the ...

The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the meaning and use of the Basque re... more The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the meaning and use of the Basque reportative particle ‘ omen ’. It is a general belief that the speaker using an ‘ omen ’-utterance expresses uncertainty. That is, for example, what Euskaltzaindia says in its grammars. I try to show, however, taking as a basis some concepts and theories of semantics and pragmatics, that the content of uncertainty often attached to ‘ omen ’, if present, belongs to the pragmatic content of the utterance. Although it is the case that in some examples the speaker implicates uncertainty by using ‘ omen ’, in many other cases the speaker conveys total certainty; sometimes she is certain that things have happened the way someone else has reported, and other times she is totally certain that things have not happened the way someone else has reported. Therefore, the uncertainty cannot be part of the meaning of the ‘ omen ’-sentence. Neither can it be part of what is said by an ‘ omen ’-utterance, ...

... Bitan tartekatzen du ebidentzialitatea moda-litate epistemikoa orokorrean azaltzen ari dela, ... more ... Bitan tartekatzen du ebidentzialitatea moda-litate epistemikoa orokorrean azaltzen ari dela, baina bukaerara arte ez du esaten nola banatzen den modalitatea, eta horren baitan modalitate episte-mikoa. ... DE HAAN, F. (1999): «Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting ...

Gogoa

Larrazabal eta Beckett Vencenneseko Unibertsitate Esperimentalean genbiltzan gu, eta Larrazabal N... more Larrazabal eta Beckett Vencenneseko Unibertsitate Esperimentalean genbiltzan gu, eta Larrazabal Nanterren, 68ko maiatzaren kedar-usainak desagertuta dagoeneko eta 'pavé'ak beren lekuan. Moskuk bere xarma guztia galdua zuen eta Maoren utopiak liluraturik zeuzkan gazteak, eta izen handiko intelektual batzuk ere bai, Michel Bethelhein ekonomialariak, esate baterako, Txinara joan-etorria egin ondoren, han ikusitako mirariak kontatzen baitzituen goraki. Gurean, urte batzuk geroago, Ruiz Balerdi margolariak berak ere bidaia bat egin zuen. Maoista taldeak amebak bezala ugaltzen ziren, tarteka bitan banatuz. Ipar Euskal Herrian bertan ere, Krutwigek Mao goraipatzen zuen hitzetik hortzera, beste jeneral eta estratega handi batzuen artean, noski, eta ezkontzen hain zailak zitzaizkigun 'liberazio nazionala eta soziala' lotzeko zirriztu bat ikusten hasita geunden 'kontraesan nagusia'ren teoriari esker. Paperean, bederen. Eta urruti samar zegoen iraultza eredu hari esker (hain urruti ere, kuanto!), abertzaleok marxista izan gintezkeen edo marxistok abertzale, segun eta bat nondik zetorren. Garaiko talde maoista ugarien artean entzutetsuena Gauche Proletarienne zen, Pierre Victor (bere benetako deitura Benny Lévy zen) izeneko batek gidatzen zuena. Bernard-Henri Levyk Sartreri eskaini zion hagiografia potoloan kontatzen duenez, sedukzio gaitasun ikusgarriak zituen, Sartre bera ere liluratzeraino. Ecole Normal Superieur famatuan bizi zen, gela batean sartuta, ia-ia atera gabe, gure Althusser miretsia bezalaxe, bidenabar esateko, nahiz eta honek egonaldi luzeak egiten zituen egoitza psikiatrikoetan. Legendak zioenez, gela horretatik atera gabe erabakitzen zituen, xake partida batean bezala, bere militanteen gorabehera guztiak, baita zertzelada pertsonalak ere. Ziotenez, garaiko liburu guztiak irakurrita zituen, kultua zen, sutsua eta enigmatikoa. Jesus Mari Larrazabalek (guretzako 'Tarzan' zen) ez zuen talde maoistarik atzetik, baina jarraitzaile sutsu asko bai Gipuzkoan barrena barreiaturik, ezker abertzalekoak, noski. Ni ez nintzen aukeratuen zirkulukoa, zumaiar bakan batzuek zuten pribilegio hori, eta ez nintzen inoiz bere gelan izan, baina, Pierre Victor bezalaxe, liburuz mukuru zeuden lau hormen artean irudikatzen nuen, guk irakurri gabe aipatzen genituen liburu guztiak irakurriak baitzituen. OHARRAK Disclaimer: azalpen labur honetako akats oro kanpoko faktoreei dagokie.

Gogoa, Oct 28, 2011

Ebiden tzialitatearen eta modalitatearen arteko harremanaz larrai tz zuBeldia * Hizkun tzalari tz... more Ebiden tzialitatearen eta modalitatearen arteko harremanaz larrai tz zuBeldia * Hizkun tzalari tzaetaEuskalIkasketaksailaetaILCLI(UPV/EHU)

Gogoa, Oct 28, 2011

... report non-literal conten ts. Finally, I will consider the translations of 'omen'. ... more ... report non-literal conten ts. Finally, I will consider the translations of 'omen'. Keywords: reportative, evidentiality, epistemic modality, generalized conversational implicature, propositional content, illocutionary force. 0. Sarrera ...

Gogoa, Oct 5, 2012

The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the meaning and use of the Basque re... more The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the meaning and use of the Basque reportative particle 'omen'. It is a general belief that the speaker using an 'omen'-utterance expresses uncertainty. That is, for example, what Euskaltzaindia says in its grammars. I try to show, however, taking as a basis some concepts and theories of semantics and pragmatics, that the content of uncertainty often attached to 'omen', if present, belongs to the pragmatic content of the utterance. Although it is the case that in some examples the speaker implicates uncertainty by using 'omen', in many other cases the speaker conveys total certainty; sometimes she is certain that things have happened the way someone else has reported, and other times she is totally certain that things have not happened the way someone else has reported. Therefore, the uncertainty cannot be part of the meaning of the 'omen'-sentence. Neither can it be part of what is said by an 'omen'-utterance, since the results of Grice's (1967a, 1967b) cancellability 'test' show that the content of uncertainty can be cancelled. So, I conclude that it is a conversational implicature; more precisely, a generalized conversational implicature, that can be generated by using an 'omen'-utterance. Then, the context will help to clarify, in each case, whether such an implicature was generated or not. I finally try to find the reason of attaching the content of uncertainty to the meaning of 'omen'-sentences.

Gogoa, 2017

Two kinds of meanings are usually attributed to the Basque particle bide. On the one hand, it is ... more Two kinds of meanings are usually attributed to the Basque particle bide. On the one hand, it is said to indicate the indirect nature of the speaker’s evidence for the truth of the proposition at issue. According to this view, it would be a sort of inferential particle. On the other hand, bide has been associated to the expression of a certain degree of belief or certainty on the truth of the proposition. This twofold dimension of bide parallels some features of the meaning and use of another Basque particle —omen. Their morpho-syntactic behaviour, for instance, is practically identical, and their semantics and pragmatics calls for a close comparison. Then, taking as a basis our independent conclusions about omen, we examine the similarities and differences between both particles. They both point to the indirect nature of the evidence the speaker has for the assertion. But we detect two main differences. First, bide encodes an epistemic or doxastic dimension that is not present in t...

Gogoa, 2017

Two kinds of meanings are usually attributed to the Basque particle bide. On the one hand, it is ... more Two kinds of meanings are usually attributed to the Basque particle bide. On the one hand, it is said to indicate the indirect nature of the speaker’s evidence for the truth of the proposition at issue. According to this view, it would be a sort of inferential particle. On the other hand, bide has been associated to the expression of a certain degree of belief or certainty on the truth of the proposition. This twofold dimension of bide parallels some features of the meaning and use of another Basque particle —omen. Their morpho-syntactic behaviour, for instance, is practically identical, and their semantics and pragmatics calls for a close comparison. Then, taking as a basis our independent conclusions about omen, we examine the similarities and differences between both particles. They both point to the indirect nature of the evidence the speaker has for the assertion. But we detect two main differences. First, bide encodes an epistemic or doxastic dimension that is not present in t...

Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2016

Two kinds of meanings are usually associated to the Basque particle bide.1 On the one hand, it ha... more Two kinds of meanings are usually associated to the Basque particle bide.1 On the one hand, it has been taken to point to the indirect nature of the speaker’s evidence for the truth of the proposition put forward. According to this view, it would be a sort of inferential particle. On the other hand, bide has been associated to the expression of a certain degree of belief or certainty on the truth of the proposition. This double dimension of bide resembles various aspects of the meaning and use of another Basque particle – omen. The morpho-syntactic behaviour of these two particles is practically identical, and their semantics and pragmatics invite a close comparison. Thus, starting from our conclusions regarding omen, we explore the similarities and differences between both particles. We find two main differences. First, bide encodes a doxastic dimension that is absent from the semantic meaning of omen. And, second, bide can be taken to be an illocutionary force indicator that does ...

Euskera ikerketa aldizkaria

'Omen'en esanahiaren eta erabileraren berri ematea dugu helburu lan honetan. saiatuko gara argudi... more 'Omen'en esanahiaren eta erabileraren berri ematea dugu helburu lan honetan. saiatuko gara argudiatzen 'omen' duen esaldiaren hiztunak adierazten duela proposizio bat hiztuna ez den beste batek esana edo baieztua dela, edo hari entzuna edo irakurria (ez ikusia). Horixe du bere esanahia, eta, horri jarraiki, erakutsiko dugu orain arteko gramatika eta hiztegiek 'omen'i lotu izan dioten ziurtasunik eza ez dela haren esanahiaren parte, baizik eta hiztunak eragin dezakeen inplikatura, 'omen'dun esaldi bat eginez. esango dugu, baita ere, 'omen'i ematen dizkioten 'parece (que)' edo 'il paraît (que)' gisako baliokideak ez direla bereak, baizik eta 'bide'renak. Horretarako, orain arteko gramatika eta hiztegiek esandako gauza batzuk baztertu eta beste batzuk zehaztu beharko ditugu. egungo semantika eta pragmatikako bereizketa nagusiak hartuko ditugu oinarri eta bidelagun horiek xehetzeko. Hitz-gakoak: esanahia, edukia, esandakoa, inplikatura, proposizio-edukia. el objetivo de este trabajo es definir el significado y explicar el uso de la partícula 'omen' del euskara. intentaremos argumentar que el hablante, mediante una proferencia con 'omen', expresa que una proposición es dicha o afirmada por otro hablante, o bien escuchada o leída a otro hablante. Ése es su significado, e intentaremos demostrar que el contenido de incertidumbre que las gramáticas y diccionarios han asociado a 'omen' no es parte de su significado, sino la implicatura que puede producir el hablante mediante la realización de una proferencia con 'omen'. Veremos también que los equivalentes como 'parece (que)' o 'il paraît (que)' asignados a 'omen' no son sus equivalentes, sino de la partícula 'bide'. Para ello, tendremos que descartar algunas de las cosas propuestas acerca de 'omen' por las gramáticas y diccionarios publicados hasta hoy, y precisar algunas otras. Partiremos de las principales distinciones de la semántica y pragmática, con el fin de que nos ayuden a refinar lo dicho hasta ahora acerca de 'omen'.

Journal of Pragmatics, 2012

This book is an indication of the growing strength of the relatively new field of experimental pr... more This book is an indication of the growing strength of the relatively new field of experimental pragmatics. Following Noveck and Sperber (2004) and Sauerland and Yatsushiro (2009), it is the third book devoted to the presentation of experimental work which bears directly on theoretical issues in pragmatics and semantics. The book Experimental Pragmatics, edited by Ira Noveck and Dan Sperber, laid down the basis of this new field, although related pioneering work had already been conducted in the 70s (Clark, 1979 or Gibbs, 1979, for example). This new discipline has its roots in the interaction of pragmatics and experimental psychology (mainly psycholinguistics, but psychology of reasoning as well). Pragmatics and psycholinguistics share a common focus, namely, how our knowledge of language and context allows us to understand each other's utterances. However, researchers within the two disciplines did not collaborate with each other, until they realized the benefits they would gain by confronting theoretical analysis with experimental testing. As Noveck and Sperber (2004:9) state, for pragmatics the gain is twofold: first, experimental evidence can be used to confirm or reject a hypothesis, instead of just following intuitions (the only source of evidence for many philosophers of language and linguists); second, testing experimentally requires a ''higher degree of theoretical explicitness'', often requiring the revision and refinement of theories. Experimental psycholinguistics, on the other hand, takes advantage of the competencies, concepts and theories developed in pragmatics ''in order to better describe and explain a range of phenomena (.. .) and to develop new experimental paradigms'' (Noveck and Sperber, 2004). The contributions to this first volume showed that many varied issues can be clarified and deepened when subjected to experimental pragmatics: understanding definite descriptions, indirect speech acts, what is said vs. what is meant, metaphors, processing of quantifiers, and Scalar Implicatures (SIs), among others. And all these can be investigated using different experimental methods. Although the field of experimental pragmatics has only recently been established, many studies and articles have been published since then, and some workshops and conferences (and some panels and sessions) have been organized; for example, the biennial Experimental Pragmatic Conference, organized by EURO-XPRAG. Within only a few years experimental pragmatics has become a very active field; and it keeps growing and growing, as the present volume shows. This book contains versions of ten presentations given by 16 contributors at the workshop Experimental Pragmatics/ Semantics, held in February 2008, at the University of Bamberg, Germany. As the editors make clear in their introduction, the problem of the boundary between semantics and pragmatics is the issue that informs all contributions to the volume; a problem that has raised and still raises considerable debate, including the question of how much pragmatics influences semantics, and the role of experimental pragmatics/semantics in resolving this question. Several other dichotomies have arisen around this distinction: 'what is said' vs. 'what is implicated', Neogricean vs. Relevance theory, minimalism vs. contextualism, etc. The main topic of the book being the distinction between semantics and pragmatics, the reader would expect more papers than, in fact, are directly related to that issue (i.e. the works of Liedtke and Paltiel-Gedalyovich). Still, all contributions are, to some extent, related to the debate. The contribution of experimental pragmatics to pragmatic and semantic theory is discussed from a number of different angles. First, the chapters examine a wide range of issues: pragmatic enrichment, SIs (still one of the most important topics in experimental pragmatics), language impairment, ambiguity, focus, coordination, objects and 'what is said'. Second, a variety of experimental methods is employed: Truth/Felicity-Value Judgment Tasks, questionnaires, eyetracking, picture selection tasks, ERPs and conversations between children and adult examiners. It should be noted that while some authors provide many methodological details (Müller, Schulz and Hoḧle, for instance), which are very helpful in making the reader aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each method, some others are not as precise.

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 2022

Language, 2014

The aim of the present work is to provide evidence for two debates in the formal literature on ev... more The aim of the present work is to provide evidence for two debates in the formal literature on evidentiality: (i) whether the evidential content of evidential elements is in the scope of (certain) operators and (ii) whether the evidential content can be directly assented/rejected or challenged. We argue, based on the main semantic and pragmatic properties of the Basque reportative particle omen that, on the one hand, the evidential content can have narrow scope within certain operators, and, on the other hand, it can be rejected (contrary to what is claimed to happen crosslinguistically). Based on these facts, we contend that the role of omen is best interpreted as contributing to the truth-conditions or the propositional content of the utterance, and not to its illocutionary force or as a presupposition trigger. We contend that, by using omen, the speaker asserts that the reported proposition has been stated (or written) by someone other than herself. Omen has no other semantic meaning. In our view, the speaker's expression of uncertainty often attributed to omen, if it is present, belongs to the pragmatic content of the utterance, and, more precisely, is a generalized conversational implicature of the omen-utterance. Grice's (1967a/1989, 1967b/1989) cancellability 'test' and the data from several corpora support our conclusion. The speaker's expression of uncertainty is explicitly or contextually cancellable, and we found many examples in which the speaker's certainty on either the truth or falsity of the reported proposition is clear. Besides that, inspired by Korta & Perry 2011a, we distinguish between three contents, or sets of truth-conditions, involved in an omen-utterance, relative to the possible status of the original speaker. Moreover, the results of another test (which can be called the reportability test) show that speakers tend not to use omen to report non-literal contents (particularized conversational implicatures and presuppositions, at least). * * Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, in Vilnius, the ILCLI Seminar on Language and Communication, the pragmatics reading group of the Linguistics department at UCL, the conference The nature of evidentiality, in Leiden, and the 2nd IIFs-ILCLI Workshop on Logic, Cognition and Language, Mexico City. We would like to thank

The aim of this paper is to shed some light on the meaning and use of the Basque reportative part... more The aim of this paper is to shed some light on the meaning and use of the Basque reportative particle ‘omen’. We want to show that, contrary to what most Basque dictionaries and grammars suggest, beyond i-ts reportative aspect, the meaning of ‘omen’ does not include neither (i) the evidential meaning that would make it synonymous with the particle ‘bide’ nor (ii) the expression of doubt or uncertainty about the truth of the proposition on which ‘omen’ operates. We will also try to account for the particular behavior of ‘omen’ as a reportative particle. To deal with these issues, we will make use of basic tene-ts of contemporary semantics and pragmatics, distinguishing among the meaning of sentences containing ‘omen’, the content(s) of utterances of those sentences, and the eventual conversational implicatures generated by those utterances. We will also briefly compare our view with Faller’s (2002) speech-act theoretic account of a similar particle in Cuzco Quechua.

... In B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (arg.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston Univer... more ... In B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (arg.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on language development, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 453-463. NOVECK,IRA; GENNARO CHIERCHIA; FLORELLE CHEVAUX; RAPHAëLLE GUELMINGER & ...

The expression of the source of information is called ‘evidentiality’ in the literature. It is qu... more The expression of the source of information is called ‘evidentiality’ in the literature. It is quite a new field in linguistics, since it was mentioned first at the beginning of the 20th century. Later on, many works have been published, from different perspectives. Nevertheless, many of them have focused on an issue: the relation evidentiality has with another linguistic fields, and especially the relation it has with modality. We will also focus on the same matter, namely on the relation between evidentiality and modality, collecting different points of view.

The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the main semantic and pragmatic prop... more The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the main semantic and pragmatic properties of the Basque reportative particle ‘omen’. I contend that by using ‘omen’ the speaker states that the reported proposition has been said (or written) by someone other than herself. ‘Omen’ has no other semantic meaning. In my view, the speaker’s expression of uncertainty often attached to ‘omen’, if present, belongs to the pragmatic content of the utterance, and, more precisely, it is a generalized conversational implicature of the ‘omen’-utterance. Grice’s (1967a, 1967b) cancellability ‘test’ and the data from several corpora support this conclusion. I will also contend that the role of ‘omen’ is best interpreted as contributing to the truth-conditions or propositional content of the utterance, and not to its illocutionary force or presuppositions. Two tests support this conclusion. Besides that, I distinguish between (at least) three contents in an ‘omen’-utterance, based in the ...

The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the meaning and use of the Basque re... more The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the meaning and use of the Basque reportative particle ‘ omen ’. It is a general belief that the speaker using an ‘ omen ’-utterance expresses uncertainty. That is, for example, what Euskaltzaindia says in its grammars. I try to show, however, taking as a basis some concepts and theories of semantics and pragmatics, that the content of uncertainty often attached to ‘ omen ’, if present, belongs to the pragmatic content of the utterance. Although it is the case that in some examples the speaker implicates uncertainty by using ‘ omen ’, in many other cases the speaker conveys total certainty; sometimes she is certain that things have happened the way someone else has reported, and other times she is totally certain that things have not happened the way someone else has reported. Therefore, the uncertainty cannot be part of the meaning of the ‘ omen ’-sentence. Neither can it be part of what is said by an ‘ omen ’-utterance, ...

... Bitan tartekatzen du ebidentzialitatea moda-litate epistemikoa orokorrean azaltzen ari dela, ... more ... Bitan tartekatzen du ebidentzialitatea moda-litate epistemikoa orokorrean azaltzen ari dela, baina bukaerara arte ez du esaten nola banatzen den modalitatea, eta horren baitan modalitate episte-mikoa. ... DE HAAN, F. (1999): «Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting ...

Gogoa

Larrazabal eta Beckett Vencenneseko Unibertsitate Esperimentalean genbiltzan gu, eta Larrazabal N... more Larrazabal eta Beckett Vencenneseko Unibertsitate Esperimentalean genbiltzan gu, eta Larrazabal Nanterren, 68ko maiatzaren kedar-usainak desagertuta dagoeneko eta 'pavé'ak beren lekuan. Moskuk bere xarma guztia galdua zuen eta Maoren utopiak liluraturik zeuzkan gazteak, eta izen handiko intelektual batzuk ere bai, Michel Bethelhein ekonomialariak, esate baterako, Txinara joan-etorria egin ondoren, han ikusitako mirariak kontatzen baitzituen goraki. Gurean, urte batzuk geroago, Ruiz Balerdi margolariak berak ere bidaia bat egin zuen. Maoista taldeak amebak bezala ugaltzen ziren, tarteka bitan banatuz. Ipar Euskal Herrian bertan ere, Krutwigek Mao goraipatzen zuen hitzetik hortzera, beste jeneral eta estratega handi batzuen artean, noski, eta ezkontzen hain zailak zitzaizkigun 'liberazio nazionala eta soziala' lotzeko zirriztu bat ikusten hasita geunden 'kontraesan nagusia'ren teoriari esker. Paperean, bederen. Eta urruti samar zegoen iraultza eredu hari esker (hain urruti ere, kuanto!), abertzaleok marxista izan gintezkeen edo marxistok abertzale, segun eta bat nondik zetorren. Garaiko talde maoista ugarien artean entzutetsuena Gauche Proletarienne zen, Pierre Victor (bere benetako deitura Benny Lévy zen) izeneko batek gidatzen zuena. Bernard-Henri Levyk Sartreri eskaini zion hagiografia potoloan kontatzen duenez, sedukzio gaitasun ikusgarriak zituen, Sartre bera ere liluratzeraino. Ecole Normal Superieur famatuan bizi zen, gela batean sartuta, ia-ia atera gabe, gure Althusser miretsia bezalaxe, bidenabar esateko, nahiz eta honek egonaldi luzeak egiten zituen egoitza psikiatrikoetan. Legendak zioenez, gela horretatik atera gabe erabakitzen zituen, xake partida batean bezala, bere militanteen gorabehera guztiak, baita zertzelada pertsonalak ere. Ziotenez, garaiko liburu guztiak irakurrita zituen, kultua zen, sutsua eta enigmatikoa. Jesus Mari Larrazabalek (guretzako 'Tarzan' zen) ez zuen talde maoistarik atzetik, baina jarraitzaile sutsu asko bai Gipuzkoan barrena barreiaturik, ezker abertzalekoak, noski. Ni ez nintzen aukeratuen zirkulukoa, zumaiar bakan batzuek zuten pribilegio hori, eta ez nintzen inoiz bere gelan izan, baina, Pierre Victor bezalaxe, liburuz mukuru zeuden lau hormen artean irudikatzen nuen, guk irakurri gabe aipatzen genituen liburu guztiak irakurriak baitzituen. OHARRAK Disclaimer: azalpen labur honetako akats oro kanpoko faktoreei dagokie.

Gogoa, Oct 28, 2011

Ebiden tzialitatearen eta modalitatearen arteko harremanaz larrai tz zuBeldia * Hizkun tzalari tz... more Ebiden tzialitatearen eta modalitatearen arteko harremanaz larrai tz zuBeldia * Hizkun tzalari tzaetaEuskalIkasketaksailaetaILCLI(UPV/EHU)

Gogoa, Oct 28, 2011

... report non-literal conten ts. Finally, I will consider the translations of 'omen'. ... more ... report non-literal conten ts. Finally, I will consider the translations of 'omen'. Keywords: reportative, evidentiality, epistemic modality, generalized conversational implicature, propositional content, illocutionary force. 0. Sarrera ...

Gogoa, Oct 5, 2012

The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the meaning and use of the Basque re... more The aim of the present work is to provide a brief account of the meaning and use of the Basque reportative particle 'omen'. It is a general belief that the speaker using an 'omen'-utterance expresses uncertainty. That is, for example, what Euskaltzaindia says in its grammars. I try to show, however, taking as a basis some concepts and theories of semantics and pragmatics, that the content of uncertainty often attached to 'omen', if present, belongs to the pragmatic content of the utterance. Although it is the case that in some examples the speaker implicates uncertainty by using 'omen', in many other cases the speaker conveys total certainty; sometimes she is certain that things have happened the way someone else has reported, and other times she is totally certain that things have not happened the way someone else has reported. Therefore, the uncertainty cannot be part of the meaning of the 'omen'-sentence. Neither can it be part of what is said by an 'omen'-utterance, since the results of Grice's (1967a, 1967b) cancellability 'test' show that the content of uncertainty can be cancelled. So, I conclude that it is a conversational implicature; more precisely, a generalized conversational implicature, that can be generated by using an 'omen'-utterance. Then, the context will help to clarify, in each case, whether such an implicature was generated or not. I finally try to find the reason of attaching the content of uncertainty to the meaning of 'omen'-sentences.

Gogoa, 2017

Two kinds of meanings are usually attributed to the Basque particle bide. On the one hand, it is ... more Two kinds of meanings are usually attributed to the Basque particle bide. On the one hand, it is said to indicate the indirect nature of the speaker’s evidence for the truth of the proposition at issue. According to this view, it would be a sort of inferential particle. On the other hand, bide has been associated to the expression of a certain degree of belief or certainty on the truth of the proposition. This twofold dimension of bide parallels some features of the meaning and use of another Basque particle —omen. Their morpho-syntactic behaviour, for instance, is practically identical, and their semantics and pragmatics calls for a close comparison. Then, taking as a basis our independent conclusions about omen, we examine the similarities and differences between both particles. They both point to the indirect nature of the evidence the speaker has for the assertion. But we detect two main differences. First, bide encodes an epistemic or doxastic dimension that is not present in t...

Gogoa, 2017

Two kinds of meanings are usually attributed to the Basque particle bide. On the one hand, it is ... more Two kinds of meanings are usually attributed to the Basque particle bide. On the one hand, it is said to indicate the indirect nature of the speaker’s evidence for the truth of the proposition at issue. According to this view, it would be a sort of inferential particle. On the other hand, bide has been associated to the expression of a certain degree of belief or certainty on the truth of the proposition. This twofold dimension of bide parallels some features of the meaning and use of another Basque particle —omen. Their morpho-syntactic behaviour, for instance, is practically identical, and their semantics and pragmatics calls for a close comparison. Then, taking as a basis our independent conclusions about omen, we examine the similarities and differences between both particles. They both point to the indirect nature of the evidence the speaker has for the assertion. But we detect two main differences. First, bide encodes an epistemic or doxastic dimension that is not present in t...

Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2016

Two kinds of meanings are usually associated to the Basque particle bide.1 On the one hand, it ha... more Two kinds of meanings are usually associated to the Basque particle bide.1 On the one hand, it has been taken to point to the indirect nature of the speaker’s evidence for the truth of the proposition put forward. According to this view, it would be a sort of inferential particle. On the other hand, bide has been associated to the expression of a certain degree of belief or certainty on the truth of the proposition. This double dimension of bide resembles various aspects of the meaning and use of another Basque particle – omen. The morpho-syntactic behaviour of these two particles is practically identical, and their semantics and pragmatics invite a close comparison. Thus, starting from our conclusions regarding omen, we explore the similarities and differences between both particles. We find two main differences. First, bide encodes a doxastic dimension that is absent from the semantic meaning of omen. And, second, bide can be taken to be an illocutionary force indicator that does ...