Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T20:37:02.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factuality and intonation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

John Oakeshott-Taylor
John Oakeshott-Taylor
Affiliation:
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Starting from the well-known difference between I ‵thought he was married (which he is) – where the complement is given a factual interpretation – and I thought he was ‵married (but he isn’t) – which is counterfactual – this article examines the syntactic, semantic, contextual and prosodic conditions under which factual and counterfactual interpretations can emerge. Factuality is distinguished from factivity, and concerns a person’s (usually the speaker’s) subjective assessment of whether the propositional content of a sentence or sentence fragment conforms or conflicts with his perception of reality. The modal nature of factuality is stressed, as is the contribution of tense and intonation to the emergence of factuality interpretations.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akmajian, A. & Jackendoff, R. (1970). Coreferentiality and stress. LIn I. 124–126.Google Scholar
Brazil, D., Coulthard, R. & Johns, C. (1980). Discourse intonation and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (1975). Advanced English conversation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fillimore, C. (1971). Types of lexical information. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics. Cambridge: University Press. 370–392.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, D (1977). Intonative features. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. (1974). On assertive predicates. Syntax and Semantics IV. 91–124.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971). Implicative verbs. Lg 47. 340–358.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1971). Fact. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics. Cambridge: University Press. 345–369.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971). Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics. Cambridge: University Press. 329–340.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, J. & Arnold, G. (1973 2). Intonation of colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schubiger, M. (1958). English intonation: its form and function. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Scuffil, M. (1982). Experiments in comparative intonation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar