Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features

By M. Speas. 2004

240 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Philosophy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb2e56edfa0586a5a6e295fa72ed7b103ab0b75f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Language and Linguistics

In Philosophy

Citations in the corpus

Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles (2011, background): “(Sells 1987, Zribi-Hertz 1989, Tenny 1998, Speas 2000 etc.) Studies of this sort naturally raise questions about the extent to which pragmatic information is syntactically represented.”
The case of PRO (2008, background): “Sigurðsson (2004b, 2007c), Speas (2004) , Bianchi (2006), among many.”
Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets (2008, background): “In particular, it casts doubt on attempts to establish a universally fixed position in the functional hierarchy where evidentials are located (see e.g., Hengeveld 1990, van Valin and La Polla 1997, Cinque 1999, Speas 2004, 2006).”
Perspective in Taste Predicates and Epistemic Modals (2011, background): “6.5. and Schlenker (2005a) and arguments of Percus (2000) and Speas (2004b) according to which verbs syntactically project not just a time but also a world argument.”
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?”
A Two-Tiered Theory of Control (2015, background): “32 For studies of the syntax of the left periphery related to attitude reports and logophoricity, see Koopman and Sportiche 1989, Bianchi 2003, Sigurðsson 2004, Speas 2004, Adesola 2005, Baker 2008, Giorgi 2010, Sundaresan 2012.”