[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/faller-2019-discourse-commitments-illocutionary-reportatives/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/) / The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives

# The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives

**Authors:** Martina Faller · **Year:** 2019 · **Venue:** Semantics and Pragmatics 12 **Link:** [semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/view/sp.12.8](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/view/sp.12.8) · **Licence:** [CC BY 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

[**70** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W2904493674) openalex-snapshot · 2026-10-14[**3** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/faller-2019-discourse-commitments-illocutionary-reportatives/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[Semantics and Pragmatics](https://openalex.org/S33105140)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.8)
- [PDF](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/download/sp.12.8/pdf)
- [DOI 10.3765/sp.12.8](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.8)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2904493674)

**Authors (1)**

1. [Faller, Martina T](https://openalex.org/A5017912487) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5220-5783) · [Semantic Scholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/3518442) · h 16 · 1418 citations · 50 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex-snapshot (2026-10-14); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The paper studies the reportative evidential of Cuzco Quechua, a suffix meaning roughly «I was told». A speaker can use it for a claim they then deny («They left me money, I was told — but no, they didn't leave me a sol»), so it is not an assertion; yet the reported claim can answer the question under discussion, enter discourse relations and, if nobody objects, become common ground. The solution splits the speaker, after Goffman, into the *animator* who utters and the *principal* whose commitment is conveyed. A declarative brings three defaults: the principal is committed to the content, the animator has adequate evidence, and principal = animator; together they make an assertion. The reportative overrides the last two. When the animator does not object, Walker's Collaborative Principle (disagree at once or be taken to accept) gives them a weaker, dependent commitment. The analysis is set in Farkas & Bruce's commitment-based discourse model and extended to hedges and attitude verbs in general.

## Ideas

- I1. Store who is committed to a fact. English marks report and hearsay with verbs and adverbs (*they say, it is said, I was told, reportedly, apparently, according to X*) and with every Say frame. A fact read from a quote or a report should keep its principal (the speaker of the Say frame) in the SLM student's memory, not become a plain world fact. «Did the fox own the cheese?» after «"The cheese is mine," said the fox» is then answered «the fox said so». A `principal` field on frames built from `quote` in `prag/src/frames.rs`; check with `world knowledge diagnose` how many wrong answers come from a character's claim taken as narrator fact.
- I2. Apply the Collaborative Principle as a reading rule: a character's claim that no one in the scene contradicts (no `disagree`, no negated frame on the same predicate later) is promoted to common ground with a «not contradicted» mark; a contradicted one stays the character's. Minimal pairs: a lie that is later exposed versus a report that goes unchallenged.
- I3. Add hearsay adverbs and phrases (*reportedly, allegedly, supposedly, apparently, they say, I hear*) to the hedge cues in `prag/data/cues.tsv` as their own class, separate from uncertainty hedges, since they shift commitment rather than lower certainty. Measure how many silver `hedge=1` sentences they explain.

## For Mova

[32. Politeness and hedging](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/32-politeness-and-hedging/) §8 (epistemic modality and evidentiality), `38-dialogue-and-discourse-markers.md` §7 (reported speech), `33-implicature-and-presupposition.md` §7 (accommodation). Code: `prag/src/frames.rs` (principal of quoted frames), `world/src/knowledge.rs` (student memory), `prag/data/cues.tsv`. Measures: diagnosis counts for claims taken as facts; minimal-pair tests.

Topics: [Discourse analysis](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/topics/discourse-analysis/) · [Speech act theory](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/topics/speech-act-theory/)

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.3765/sp.12.8](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.8)

```
@article{faller2019discourse,
  title = {{The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives}},
  author = {Faller, Martina T},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2019},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.12.8},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.8}
}
```

- [← previous The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/falkum-2017-lexical-pragmatics-count-mass-polysemy/)
- [next → SemEval-2022 Task 6: iSarcasmEval, Intended Sarcasm Detection in English and Arabic](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/farha-2022-semeval-2022-task-6-isarcasmeval/)
- [↑ back to English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/)

## References

72 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Yurievna. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aikhenvald%2C+Alexandra+Yurievna%2E+2004%2E+Evidentiality%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
2. Alston, William Payne. 2000. Illocutionary acts and sentence meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alston%2C+William+Payne%2E+2000%2E+Illocutionary+acts+and+sentence+meaning%2E+Ithaca%2C+NY%3A+Cornell+University+Press%2E)
3. AnderBois, Scott. 2014. On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 24. 234–254. https://doi.org/10.3 765/salt.v24i0.2424. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2424)
4. AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu & Robert Henderson. 2015. At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics 32(1). 93–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft014. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft014)
5. Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anderson%2C+Lloyd+B%2E+1986%2E+Evidentials%2C+paths+of+change+and+mental+maps%3A+typologically+regular+asymmetries%2E+In+Wallace+Chafe+%26+Johanna+Nichols+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Evidentiality%3A+The+linguistic+coding+of+epistemolog)
6. Asher, Nicholas & Alexis Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Asher%2C+Nicholas+%26+Alexis+Lascarides%2E+2003%2E+Logics+of+conversation%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
7. Brody, Jill. 1988. Incipient literacy: From involvement to integration in Tojolabal Maya. Oral Tradition 3(3). 315–352. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brody%2C+Jill%2E+1988%2E+Incipient+literacy%3A+From+involvement+to+integration+in+Tojolabal+Maya%2E+Oral+Tradition+3%283%29%2E+315%E2%80%93352%2E)
8. Cusihuaman, Antonio. 2001. Gramática Quechua: Cuzco-Collao. 2nd edn. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas”. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cusihuaman%2C+Antonio%2E+2001%2E+Gram%C3%A1tica+Quechua%3A+Cuzco%2DCollao%2E+2nd+edn%2E+Cuzco%3A+Centro+de+Estudios+Regionales+Andinos+%E2%80%9CBartolom%C3%A9+de+las+Casas%E2%80%9D%2E)
9. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Clare Cook, Jeffrey Muehlbauer & Ryan Waldie. 2017. (De-)constructing evidentiality. Lingua 186-187. 21–54. https://doi.org/1 0.1016/j.lingua.2016.10.001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.10.001)
10. Dixon, Robert M. W. 2003. Evidentiality in Jarawara. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality (Typological Studies in Language 54), 165–187. Oxford: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.10dix. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.10dix)
11. Martina Faller Ehrich, Veronika. 2001. Was nicht müssen und nicht können (nicht) bedeuten können: zum Skopus der Negation bei den Modalverben des Deutschen. In Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9, 149–176. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Martina+Faller+Ehrich%2C+Veronika%2E+2001%2E+Was+nicht+m%C3%BCssen+und+nicht+k%C3%B6nnen+%28nicht%29+bedeuten+k%C3%B6nnen%3A+zum+Skopus+der+Negation+bei+den+Modalverben+des+Deutschen%2E+In+Reimar+M%C3%BCller+%26+Marga+Reis+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Modal)
12. Espinoza, Darío. 1997. Tanteo puntun chaykuna valen. Lima: CHIRAPAQ — Centro de Culturas Indias. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Espinoza%2C+Dar%C3%ADo%2E+1997%2E+Tanteo+puntun+chaykuna+valen%2E+Lima%3A+CHIRAPAQ+%E2%80%94+Centro+de+Culturas+Indias%2E)
13. Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. [https://personalpa](https://personalpa) ges.manchester.ac.uk/staff/Martina.T.Faller/documents/Thesis.pdf. [↗](https://personalpa)
14. Faller, Martina. 2004. The deictic core of “non-experienced past” in Cuzco Quechua. Journal of Semantics 21(1). 45–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.1.45. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos)
15. Faller, Martina. 2007. The Cusco Quechua reportative evidential and rhetorical relations. In Andrew Simpson & Peter Austin (eds.), Endangered languages. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 14, 223–251. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Faller%2C+Martina%2E+2007%2E+The+Cusco+Quechua+reportative+evidential+and+rhetorical+relations%2E+In+Andrew+Simpson+%26+Peter+Austin+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Endangered+languages%2E+Linguistische+Berichte%2C+Sonderheft+14%2C+223%E2%80%93251%2E)
16. Faller, Martina. 2011. A possible worlds semantics for Cuzco Quechua evidentials. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 660–683. https://do i.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2586. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2586)
17. Faller, Martina. 2012. Evidential scalar implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy 35(4). 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9119-8. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9119-8)
18. Faller, Martina. 2014. Reportativity, (not-)at-issueness, and assertion. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 40. 62–84. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v40i0 .3133. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v40i0)
19. Faller, Martina. 2017. Backgrounding and foregrounding of reportatives. Talk presented at the IPrA panel on foreground and background, Belfast, July 2017. Belfast. [https://www.academia.edu/37948064/Backgrounding_an](https://www.academia.edu/37948064/Backgrounding_an) d_foregrounding_of_reportatives. [↗](https://www.academia.edu/37948064/Backgrounding_an)
20. Farkas, Donka F. & Kim B. Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27(1). 81–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/jo s/ffp010. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jo)
21. Farkas, Donka F. & Floris Roelofsen. 2015. Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91(2). 359–414. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017)
22. Farkas, Donka F. & Floris Roelofsen. 2017. Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. Journal of Semantics 34(2). 237– 289. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw012. Reportatives and commitments Fetzer, Anita. 2015. ‘When you came into office you said that your government would be different’: Forms and functions of quotations in mediated political discourse. In Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman & Lawrence N. Berlin (eds.), The dynamics of political discourse: Forms and functions of follow-ups, 245–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbn s.259.10fet. von Fintel, Kai & Anthony S. Gillies. 2008. CIA leaks. Philosophical Review 117(1). 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-025. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw012)
23. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Jerry Seligman & Dag Westerståhl (eds.), Language, logic, and computation, 221– 237. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Goffman, Erving. 1974–1986. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Reprint. Originally published: New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+Jonathan%2E+1996%2E+Dynamics+and+the+semantics+of+dialogue%2E+In+Jerry+Seligman+%26+Dag+Westerst%C3%A5hl+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Language%2C+logic%2C+and+computation%2C+221%E2%80%93+237%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI%2E+Goffman%2C+Erving%2E+1974%E2%80%931986)
24. Goffman, Erving. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25(1-2). 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1 515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1)
25. Gordon, David & George Lakoff. 1975. Conversational postulates. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), 83– 106. New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/978900436 8811_005. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/978900436)
26. Grenoble, Lenore A. 1998. Deixis and information packaging in Russian discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.50. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.50)
27. Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grice%2C+Paul%2E+1989%2E+Studies+in+the+way+of+words%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Harvard+University+Press%2E)
28. Gunlogson, Christine. 2001. True to form: rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York, NY: Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gunlogson%2C+Christine%2E+2001%2E+True+to+form%3A+rising+and+falling+declaratives+as+questions+in+English%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+Routledge%2E)
29. Gunlogson, Christine. 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22. 101–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.06gun. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.06gun)
30. Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1971. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37(2). 130–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.x. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.x)
31. Harnish, Robert M. 2005. Commitments and speech acts. Philosophica 75(1). 11–41. https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82209. [↗](https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82209)
32. Harris, Jesse A. & Christopher Potts. 2009. Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6). 523–552. https://d oi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9070-5. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9070-5)
33. Hoijer, Harry. 1946. Tonkawa. In Cornelius Osgood (ed.), Linguistic structures of Native America, 289–311. New York, NY: The Viking Fund. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hoijer%2C+Harry%2E+1946%2E+Tonkawa%2E+In+Cornelius+Osgood+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Linguistic+structures+of+Native+America%2C+289%E2%80%93311%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+The+Viking+Fund%2E)
34. Martina Faller Hunter, Julie. 2016. Reports in discourse. Dialogue & Discourse 7(4). 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2016.401. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2016.401)
35. Itier, César (ed.). 1999. Karu Ñankunapi. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de Las Casas”. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Itier%2C+C%C3%A9sar+%28ed%2E%29%2E+1999%2E+Karu+%C3%91ankunapi%2E+Cuzco%3A+Centro+de+Estudios+Regionales+Andinos+%E2%80%9CBartolom%C3%A9+de+Las+Casas%E2%80%9D%2E)
36. Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 7. 222–239. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v7i0.2795. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v7i0.2795)
37. Koring, Loes. 2013. Seemingly similar: Subjects and displacement in grammar, processing, and acquisition. Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation. [https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/273227](https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/273227). [↗](https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/273227)
38. Korotkova, Natalia. 2016. Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. [https://escholarship.org/uc/item/40m5f2f1](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/40m5f2f1). [↗](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/40m5f2f1)
39. Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, 38–74. Berlin: De Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kratzer%2C+Angelika%2E+1981%2E+The+notional+category+of+modality%2E+In+Hans%2DJ%C3%BCrgen+Eikmeyer+%26+Hannes+Rieser+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Words%2C+worlds%2C+and+contexts%3A+New+approaches+in+word+semantics%2C+38%E2%80%9374%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruyter%2E)
40. Kratzer, Angelika. 1987. Modality. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik / Semantics: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung [An international handbook of contemporary research], 639–650. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/97831101269 69.7.639. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/97831101269)
41. Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.001.0001)
42. Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9(1). 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017903702063. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1017903702063)
43. Krifka, Manfred. 2014. Embedding illocutionary acts. In Tom Roeper & Peggy Speas (eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition, 59–87. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_4. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_4)
44. Lauer, Sven. 2013. Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. [http://sven-lauer.net/output/Lauer-Dissertation](http://sven-lauer.net/output/Lauer-Dissertation) -DynamicPragmatics.pdf. [↗](http://sven-lauer.net/output/Lauer-Dissertation)
45. Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Paul Drew & Anthony J. Wootton (eds.), Goffman: An interdisciplinary appreciation, 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levinson%2C+Stephen+C%2E+1987%2E+Putting+linguistics+on+a+proper+footing%3A+explorations+in+Goffman%E2%80%99s+concepts+of+participation%2E+In+Paul+Drew+%26+Anthony+J%2E+Wootton+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Goffman%3A+An+interdisciplinary+appreci)
46. Loaiza, Hilda Cañari. 2010. Anta warmikuna kawsayninkumanta willakunku. Cuzco: Centro Andino de Educación y Promoción José María Arguedas. Reportatives and commitments MacFarlane, John. 2011. What is assertion? In Jessica Brown & Herman Cappelen (eds.), Assertion: New philosophical essays, 79–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573004.00 3.0004. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573004.00)
47. Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis & Hotze Rullmann. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7. 201–254. https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.7.07mat. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.7.07mat)
48. McCawley, James D. 1999. Participant roles, frames, and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(6). 595–619. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100556391 5544. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:100556391)
49. Murray, Sarah. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation. http://www.semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WViOGQxY/. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7282/t3rx9btj)
50. Murray, Sarah. 2014. Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(2). 1– 53. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2)
51. Muysken, Pieter. 1995. Focus in Quechua. In Katalin Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 375–393. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195088335.003.0012)
52. Northrup, Oliver. 2014. Grounds for commitment. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation. [https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ps845ks](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ps845ks). [↗](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ps845ks)
53. Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. Second. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139167178)
54. Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface (Current Research in the Semantics / Pragmatics Interface 6). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585474199. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585474199)
55. Portner, Paul. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14. 235–252. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v14i0.2907. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v14i0.2907)
56. Portner, Paul. 2006. Comments on Faller’s paper. Talk presented at the Workshop on Philosophy and Linguistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, November 2006. Ann Arbor, MI. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Portner%2C+Paul%2E+2006%2E+Comments+on+Faller%E2%80%99s+paper%2E+Talk+presented+at+the+Workshop+on+Philosophy+and+Linguistics%2C+University+of+Michigan%2C+Ann+Arbor%2C+November+2006%2E+Ann+Arbor%2C+MI%2E)
57. Portner, Paul. 2018. Commitment to priorities. In Daniel Harris, Matt Moss & Daniel Fogal (eds.), New work in speech acts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198738831.003.0011. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198738831.003.0011)
58. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/97801992738 29.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/97801992738)
59. Martina Faller Potts, Christopher. 2007. Into the conventional-implicature dimension. 2(4). 665–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00089.x. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00089.x)
60. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 91–136. Published in Roberts 2012. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roberts%2C+Craige%2E+1996%2E+Information+structure%3A+Towards+an+integrated+formal+theory+of+pragmatics%2E+In+Jae%2DHak+Yoon+%26+Andreas+Kathol+%28eds%2E%29%2C+OSU+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics+49%2C+91%E2%80%93136%2E+Published+in+Rob)
61. Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. 5(6). 1–69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/)
62. Schlichter, Alice. 1986. The origins and deictic nature of Wintu evidentials. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 46–59. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schlichter%2C+Alice%2E+1986%2E+The+origins+and+deictic+nature+of+Wintu+evidentials%2E+In+Wallace+Chafe+%26+Johanna+Nichols+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Evidentiality%3A+The+linguistic+coding+of+epistemology%2C+46%E2%80%9359%2E+Norwood%2C+NJ%3A+Ablex)
63. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Searle%2C+John+R%2E+1969%2E+Speech+acts%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/searle-1969-speech-acts/)
64. Searle, John R. & Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Searle%2C+John+R%2E+%26+Daniel+Vanderveken%2E+1985%2E+Foundations+of+illocutionary+logic%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
65. Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117(6). 1034–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ling ua.2006.05.006. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ling)
66. Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts. 2010. What projects and why. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 309–327. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584)
67. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 315–332. New York, NY: New York Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789 004368873_013. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789)
68. Tonhauser, Judith. 2012. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. Semantics of Under-represented Languages of the Americas (SULA) 6. 239–254. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tonhauser%2C+Judith%2E+2012%2E+Diagnosing+%28not%2D%29at%2Dissue+content%2E+Semantics+of+Under%2Drepresented+Languages+of+the+Americas+%28SULA%29+6%2E+239%E2%80%93254%2E)
69. Valderrama, Ricardo & Carmen Escalante. 1982. Gregorio Condori Mamani, autobiografía. Second. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos “Bartolomé de Las Casas”. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Valderrama%2C+Ricardo+%26+Carmen+Escalante%2E+1982%2E+Gregorio+Condori+Mamani%2C+autobiograf%C3%ADa%2E+Second%2E+Cuzco%3A+Centro+de+Estudios+Rurales+Andinos+%E2%80%9CBartolom%C3%A9+de+Las+Casas%E2%80%9D%2E)
70. Walker, Marilyn A. 1996. Inferring acceptance and rejection in dialog by default rules of inference. Language and Speech 39(2-3). 265–304. https://d oi.org/10.1177/002383099603900306. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099603900306)
71. Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1). 51–97. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl .12.1.04wil. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl)
72. Zeevat, Henk. 2006. A dynamic approach to discourse particles. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 133–148. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_009. Reportatives and commitments Zimmermann, Malte. 2004. Zum “Wohl”: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodi-fikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199. 253–289. Martina Faller School of Arts, Languages and Cultures The University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL m.faller@manchester.ac.uk [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_009)