Evidentiality, Experiencers, and the Syntax of sentience in Japanese

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Reflexive binding: awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view (2014, background): “1 we observed, quoting Tenny (2006), that nominal complementation constitutes an evidential domain.”
The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions (2014, methodology): “This constraint is lifted when an evidential or a modal is used (Kuroda, 1965; Kuno, 1973; Tenny, 2006; McCready, 2007):”
Evidentiality and interrogativity (2017, background): “Speas (2004) goes so far as to argue that the ‘witness’ role projected by evidentials is in fact an implicit argument that can have syntactic reality in the clause (see also Speas and Tenny, 2003; Tenny, 2006).3 But who is this witness?”
Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste (2007, background): “1 In addition to Kratzer and MacFarlane’s work, see, for example, Moore (1962), Hacking (1967), Stalnaker (1984), DeRose (1991), Egan et al. (2005), and von Fintel and Gillies (2005, 2006).”