The Semantics of Emotive Markers and Other Illocutionary Content

I coin the term ‘emotive markers’ to describe words like fortunately and alas which encode not-at-issue information about the speaker’s emotive attitude towards the content of the utterances they occur in. I argue that there are important differences emotive markers and other encoders of not-at-issue content, in particular utterance modifiers like frankly or evidential adverbs like apparently. In contrast to these, emotive markers can result in Moore’s Paradox and always range over their local argument. I conclude that the contribution of emotive markers should be treated as ‘illocutionary content’, on par with the speaker’s other Discourse Commitments (Gunlogson, 2001), and I model this analysis in the dynamic sub-sentential update framework in Farkas and Bruce (2010).

[1]  D. R. Ladd,et al.  A First Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Negative Questions and Tag Questions , 1981 .

[2]  Mats Rooth.  Association with focus , 1985 .

[3]  Exclamation intonation , 2018 .

[4]  C. Bartels,et al.  The Intonation of English Statements and Questions: A Compositional Interpretation , 1999 .

[5]  Peggy Speas,et al.  Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles , 2011 .

[6]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Responding to polar and alternative questions , 2012 .

[7]  Martina Faller.  Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua , 2002 .

[8]  Scott Anderbois,et al.  Illocutionary Revelations: Yucatec Maya Bakáan and the Typology of Miratives , 2018, J. Semant..

[9]  Pranav Anand,et al.  Factivity, Belief and Discourse ⇤ , 2014 .

[10]  Alessandra Giorgi,et al.  About the Speaker: Towards a Syntax of Indexicality , 2010 .

[11]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives , 2009 .

[12]  Scott AnderBois,et al.  Issues and alternatives , 2011 .

[13]  J. Searle.  Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts , 1979 .

[14]  Exclamative constructions , 2008 .

[15]  Chung-hye Han.  Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions , 2002 .

[16]  Focus Fronting in Spanish: Mirative implicature and information structure , 2019, Probus.

[17]  John R. Searle,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1970 .

[18]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Inquisitive Semantics: Two Possibilities for Disjunction , 2009, TbiLLC.

[19]  David I. Beaver,et al.  What projects and why , 2010 .

[20]  Gary Natriello.  FOCUS , 1985, Digital-Age Innovation in Higher Education.

[21]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  Language typology and language universals : an international handbook , 2001 .

[22]  Maribel Romero,et al.  Two Approaches to Biased Yes/No Questions , 2005 .

[23]  C. L. Hamblin.  Mathematical models of dialogue1 , 2008 .

[24]  Maria Vilkuna,et al.  On Rheme and Kontrast , 1998 .

[25]  J. Sadock,et al.  Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts , 1975 .

[26]  Anastasia Giannakidou,et al.  Only, Emotive Factive Verbs, and the Dual Nature of Polarity Dependency , 2006 .

[27]  Silvio Cruschina,et al.  Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections , 2012 .

[28]  Eric McCready,et al.  Emotive equilibria , 2012 .

[29]  A. Herrmann,et al.  Discourse particles , 2021, The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research.

[30]  J. Sadock.  Speech acts , 2007 .

[31]  D. Farkas.  Polarity particles in English and Romanian , 2011 .

[32]  Dan I. Slobin,et al.  Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential , 1982 .

[33]  Roland R. Hausser,et al.  Surface Compositionality and the Semantics of Mood , 1980 .

[34]  Sarah E. Murray,et al.  The structure of communicative acts , 2020 .

[35]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Embedding Illocutionary Acts , 2014 .

[36]  T. Stephenson.  Towards a theory of subjective meaning , 2007 .

[37]  Andreas Trotzke.  Mirative fronting in German : Experimental evidence , 2017 .

[38]  Assertion , 2008, Practices of Reason.

[39]  Floris Roelofsen,et al.  Disjunctive Questions, Intonation, and Highlighting , 2009, Amsterdam Colloquium on Logic, Language and Meaning.

[40]  Lisa Matthewson.  On apparently non-modal evidentials , 2011 .

[41]  Irit,et al.  Commitments , Beliefs and Intentions in Dialogue , 2008 .

[42]  Yasutada Sudo,et al.  Biased polar questions in English and Japanese , 2013 .

[43]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Agreement, Disputes and Commitments in Dialogue , 2009, J. Semant..

[44]  Maria Biezma,et al.  Alternative vs Polar Questions: the cornering effect , 2009 .

[45]  Christopher Potts,et al.  A layered semantics for utterance modifiers , 2003 .

[46]  G. Jonathan,et al.  Dynamics and the Semantics of Dialogue , 1996 .

[47]  Allyson Ettinger,et al.  Mandarin utterance-final particle ba in the conversational scoreboard , 2013 .

[48]  Sophia A. Malamud,et al.  Three Ways to Avoid Commitments: Declarative Force Modifiers in the Conversational Scoreboard , 2015, J. Semant..

[49]  Daniel Vanderveken,et al.  Foundations of Illocutionary Logic , 1985 .

[50]  Brian Reese.  Bias in questions , 2007 .

[51]  C. Condoravdi.  Imperatives: Meaning and Illocutionary Force , 2011 .

[52]  Todd Nathaniel Snider.  Anaphoric Reference to Propositions. , 2017 .

[53]  Christine A. Gunlogson.  True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English , 2003 .

[54]  Sarah E. Murray.  A Hamblin Semantics for Evidentials , 2009 .

[55]  Mats Rooth.  A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[56]  Jessica Rett,et al.  A Degree Account of Exclamatives , 2008 .

[57]  Jessica Rett,et al.  Degree modification in natural language , 2008 .

[58]  Floris Roelofsen,et al.  Division of Labor in the Interpretation of Declaratives and Interrogatives , 2017, J. Semant..

[59]  Christopher Potts.  The expressive dimension , 2007 .

[60]  Connie Dickinson,et al.  Mirativity in Tsafiki , 2000 .

[61]  G. Cinque.  Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective , 1999 .

[62]  D. Gutzmann.  Use-conditional meaning : studies in multidimensional semantics , 2015 .

[63]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  At-issue Proposals and Appositive Impositions in Discourse , 2015, J. Semant..

[64]  A. Botinis,et al.  Intonation , 2001, Speech Commun..

[65]  Sarah E. Murray,et al.  A semantic account of mirative evidentials , 2013 .

[66]  Paul Portner,et al.  The Semantics of Imperatives within a Theory of Clause Types , 2004 .

[67]  S. Anderbois.  An illocutionary account of reportative evidentials in imperatives , 2017 .

[68]  Maribel Romero.  Biased Yes/No Questions : The Role of VERUM , 2006 .

[69]  Luis Alonso-Ovalle,et al.  Disjunction in Alternative Semantics , 2010 .

[70]  M. Krifka,et al.  Response particles as propositional anaphors 1 , 2013 .

[71]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Logics of Conversation , 2005, Studies in natural language processing.

[72]  Todd Snider.  At-issueness 6= anaphoric availability , 2017 .

[73]  R. M. Harnish,et al.  Commitments and Speech Acts , 2005, Philosophica.

[74]  Scott DeLancey,et al.  The mirative and evidentiality , 2001 .

[75]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Expressive content as conventional implicature , 2003 .

[76]  安平鎬,et al.  Evidentiality , 2018, A Grammar of Nganasan.

[77]  Scott Delancey,et al.  Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information , 1997 .

[78]  H. H. Clark.  Arenas of language use , 1993 .

[79]  J. Rett,et al.  Prosodically marked mirativity , 2020 .

[80]  Kim B. Bruce,et al.  On Reacting to Assertions and Polar Questions , 2010, J. Semant..

[81]  Maribel Romero,et al.  On Negative Yes/No Questions , 2004 .

[82]  D. Beaver,et al.  It's Not What You Expected! The Surprising Nature of Cleft Alternatives in French and English , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[83]  Arthur Merin,et al.  Exclamative as a Universal Speech Act Category: a case study in Decision-Theoretic Semantics and typological implications , 2008 .

[84]  E. McCready.  Varieties of conventional implicature , 2010 .

[85]  J. Rett.  A comparison of expressives and miratives , 2021, Expressive Meaning Across Linguistic Levels and Frameworks.

[86]  Manfred Krifka.  Quantifying into Question Acts , 2001 .

[87]  S. Yalcin.  Epistemic Modals , 2007 .

[88]  Daniel Vanderveken,et al.  Meaning and Speech Acts , 2009 .

[89]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  Crossing the Appositive/At-issue Meaning Boundary , 2010 .

[90]  Floris Roelofsen,et al.  Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions , 2015 .

[91]  G. Frege.  I.—THE THOUGHT: A LOGICAL INQUIRY , 1956 .

[92]  Jessica Rett,et al.  Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts , 2011 .

[93]  Erik Stenius,et al.  Mood and language-game , 1967, Synthese.

[94]  Jiun-Shiung Wu.  Antonyms? Presuppositions? On the Semantics of Two Evaluative Modals Jingran and Guoran in Mandarin , 2008, J. Chin. Lang. Comput..

[95]  K. Bach.  The Myth of Conventional Implicature , 1999 .

[96]  Richard Waltereit,et al.  Modal particles and their functional equivalents: a speech-act-theoretic approach☆ , 2001 .

[97]  Sunwoo Jeong,et al.  Intonation and Sentence Type Conventions: Two Types of Rising Declaratives , 2018, J. Semant..

[98]  Sarah E. Murray.  Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts , 2010 .

[99]  Martina Faller,et al.  Reportativity, (not-)at-issueness, and assertion , 2014 .

[100]  Sarah E. Murray.  Varieties of update , 2014 .

[101]  Paul Portner,et al.  Commitment to Priorities , 2018, Oxford Scholarship Online.