Mirative Status of the Urdu Discourse Marker to
Abstract
Abstract Views: 0
This study explicates the licensing conditions for the mirative behaviour of the Urdu discourse marker to, that is, how do declaratives become miratives in the presence of the discourse particle to? To explore the semantic contribution of this particle, the study uses Evans’ Lexical Concept and Cognitive Model (2009), since it combines linguistic and cognitive systems to account for a situated meaning. The study employs naturally occurring data, introspection, and Urdu Lughat to mitigate the limitations associated with an individual source when used in isolation. It finds that the discourse particle to contributes a non-propositional mirative meaning when it interacts with other lexical concepts undergoing the semantic compositional processes, namely selection, integration, and interpretation. The use of to and prosodic construction in declaratives remain in complementary distribution. The findings imply that both linguistic and non-linguistic factors account for form-meaning relation in Urdu language.
Downloads
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Language endangerment in the Sepik area of Papua New Guinea. Lectures on Endangered Languages, 5, 97–142.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–485.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2014). The art of grammar: A practical guide. Oxford University Press.
Bashir, E. (2010). Traces of mirativity in Shina. Himalayan Linguistics, 9(2), 1–55 https://doi.org/10.5070/H99223478
Bashir, E., Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2006, July 10–13). Evidentiality in South Asian languages [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference. Konstanz, Germany.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education (Vol. 368). Allyn & Bacon.
Brinton, L. J. (2010). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (Vol. 19). Walter de Gruyter.
Bustamante, T. T. (2013). On the syntax and semantics of mirativity: Evidence from Spanish and Albanian [Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University]. Rutgers University Libraries. https://rucore.libraries. rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/41936/
Comrie, B. (1985). Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 309–348). Cambridge University Press.
Dash, B., Datta, M., & Simpson, A. (2022). A unified analysis of the hind & Bangla discourse particle-to. Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages, 1(1), 1–13.
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/ lity.1997.1.1.33
DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford University Press.
Fahnestock, J. (1983). Semantic and lexical coherence. College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 400–416. https://doi.org/10. 2307/357897
Fillmore, C. (1975, February 15–17). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, California.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Methods in cognitive linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Grisot, C., & Moeschler, J. (2014). How do empirical methods interact with theoretical pragmatics? The conceptual and procedural contents of the English simple past and its translation into French. In Jesús Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics (pp. 7–33). Springer International Publishing.
Gunlogson, C. (2004). True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Routledge.
Hansen, M. B. M. (1998). The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua, 104(3-4), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00003-5
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2005). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 53(2), 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2005-0209
Hussain, J., & Ali, A. A. K. (2023). Declarative mirativity in Urdu: A lexico-cognitive account. Journal of English Language, Literature and Education, 5(2), 106–136. https://doi.org/10.54692/jelle.2023.0502174
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. CSLI Publications.
König, E., & Siemund, P. (2007). Speech act distinctions in grammar. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 276–324). Cambridge University Press
Kovacs, E. (2011). Polysemy in traditional vs. cognitive linguistics. Eger Journal of English Studies, 11, 3–19.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistics semantics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Mocini, R. (2014). Expressing surprise: A cross-linguistic description of mirativity. Altre Modernità, 11, 136–156.
Montaut, A. (2006). Mirative meanings as extensions of aorist in Hindi/Urdu. In R. Singh (Ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics (pp. 71–86). De Gruyter Mouton.
Peterson, T. (2017). The nativization of pragmatic borrowings in remote language contact situations. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.02.012
Peterson, T. (2018). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Gitksan. In A. Y. Aikhenvald (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality (pp. 463–489). Oxford University Press.
Peterson, T. (2020). Mirativity in morphology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/ 9780199384655.013.497
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press.
Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (2000). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford University Press.
Raza, G. (2011). Subcategorization acquisition and classes of predication in Urdu [Doctoral dissertation, Konstanz University]. KOPS https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/entities/publication/b9bb393a-aee4-490e-a5a9-4483c309d424
Rett, J. (2011). Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(5), 411–442.
Rett, J. (2021). The semantics of emotive markers and other illocutionary content. Journal of Semantics, 38(2), 305–340. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffab005
Robert, K. Y. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2008, May 6–9). The structure of Persian intonation [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of Speech Prosody. Campinas, Brazil.
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. University of Chicago Press.
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge University Press.
Sigorskiy, A. (2013). Evidentiality in Hindi: A typological view. Lingua Posnaniensis, 55(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.2478/linpo-2013-0018
Stalnaker, R. (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262951
Urooj, S., Mumtaz, B., Hussain, S., & Haq, E. U. (2021, August 30–1 September). Acoustic and prosodic correlates of emotions in Urdu speech [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of Interspeech. Brno, Czechia.
Williams, N. (2020). Deixis and Indexicals. In J. Stanlaw (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons.
Zheltova, E. (2018). How to express surprise without saying “I’m surprised” in Latin. Philologia Classica, 13(2), 228–240.
Copyright (c) 2024 Ahmad Naveed Sharif, Jabir Hussain
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
