Skip to main content

Vesela Simeonova

Karl-Franzens-University of Graz, Institut für Germanistik, Post-Doc

Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Post-Doc

Followers

135

Following

103

Public Views

In linguistics, I work at the interface between syntax and semantics, as well as their interaction with pragmatics. I am interested in evidentiality, reported speech, logophoricity, mirativity, expressives, mood. I believe that there is a common thread running through them all, and my goal is to make it as explicit as possible. My research is cross-linguistic, though I have a particular attachment to Balkan languages, not only because I am a speaker of one of them, but also because they never cease to pose great linguistic puzzles. I spend my ''free time'' with philosophers. I like epistemology, analytic philosophy, and formal logic. I am particularly fond of Wittgenstein, and more particularly, the later Wittgenstein. His discussion of private language has left its mark throughout my linguistics work. I will never be sure if there *IS* a hand, or we are all brains in a vat.
Phone: +4368181447821
Address: Mozartgasse 8, 8010 Graz

less

The University of Texas at Austin

Marc L Greenberg

University of Kansas

Louis de Saussure

University of Neuchâtel

Armando Marques-Guedes

UNL - New University of Lisbon

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Sideltsev Andrej

Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Martin Haspelmath

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

carlotta pavese

Cornell University

InterestsView All (6)

Uploads

Papers by Vesela Simeonova

The Syntax of Evidentials in Azeri, Bulgarian, and Persian∗

EVIDENTIALITY is a linguistic category expressing the source of evidence that the speaker has for... more EVIDENTIALITY is a linguistic category expressing the source of evidence that the speaker has for the proposition, with a basic distinction between DIRECT and INDIRECT evidence, with the option of further subdivisions for each (Aikhenvald and Dixon (2003); Aikhenvald (2004); Willett (1988); Chafe and Nichols (1986) a.o.). In this paper, we discuss the syntactic structure of evidential constructions in Azeri (Turkic), Bulgarian (Slavic), and Persian (Iranian). What unites these three languages from three different language families is that they all express evidentiality within the Temporal-aspectual-modal system. The evidential marking is parasiting on TAM in two ways: (1) morphologically, through a morpheme used also to express Present perfect tense, which has been dubbed PERFECT OF EVIDENTIALITY by Izvorski (1997); and (2) semantically, because tense and evidentiality in these languages are inseparable, which has caused previous works to call the tenses in Bulgarian ‘definite’ and ...

The Syntax and Semantics of Light Attitudes

This dissertation argues for the existence of functional attitude predicates, light attitudes, su... more This dissertation argues for the existence of functional attitude predicates, light attitudes, such as light say and light see. Two phenomena are identified as functional attitudes: evidentiality and logophoric say-complementizers. I propose that reportative evidential markers and logophoric licensing complementizers are cross-linguistic variations of overt morphosyntactic realizations of the same light attitude: a functionalized predicate say. The parallel between evidentiality and logophoricity drawn here highlights their properties that have not been discussed or formally accounted for until now, and explains why they are in a typological complementary distribution across the world’s languages. At the same time, direct and reportative evidentials even within the same language exhibit a number of syntactic and semantic differences that have not been noticed in the literature before. I derive them from the analysis of reportative and direct evidentials as different kinds of functio...

The syntax of content

Overview. I argue that complementizers are not semantically transparent, but serve an important r... more Overview. I argue that complementizers are not semantically transparent, but serve an important role in mediating predicational relations in semantic composition. I follow a theoretical thread built by Kratzer (2006, 2016); Hacquard (2006); Moulton (2009, 2015), but provide the first overt empirical linguistic evidence in support for it thanks to data from Bulgarian. Data. Bulgarian has two morphologically distinct declarative complementizers, deto and če, that both serve to introduce finite embedded clauses. They are almost never in complementary distribution: če but not deto can introduce embedded clauses under attitude predicates, as in (1). Če but not deto can introduce noun modifying clauses, (3). Deto but not če is the complementizer used in relative clauses, (4). The only case where both če and deto are allowed is in the complements of emotive factive predicates, such as regret, be upset, be happy, be angry, etc., as shown in (2). (1) Ivan Ivan misli/ thinks/ kaza said [če/*d...

On the Semantics of Mirativity∗

The goal of this paper is to offer a semantics of the phenomenon of MIRATIVITY. Mirativity has be... more The goal of this paper is to offer a semantics of the phenomenon of MIRATIVITY. Mirativity has been defined as encoding the speaker’s surprise, unprepared mind, discovery of state of affairs that is unexpected, Slobin and Aksu (1982); DeLancey (1997, 2012); Aikhenvald (2012). Mirative sentences can involve one of the following: exclamative intonation (1), some lexical expression (2), grammaticalized dedicated particle (3), or grammaticalized non-dedicated particle (4).1

The syntax of evidentials in Azeri, Bulgarian, and Persian

Proceedings of CLA, 2015

On the semantics of mirativity

CLA proceedings, 2015

Flavors of predicate modification

Proceedings of CLS 54, 2018

The Inferential Future in Bulgarian: An Evidential Modal Proposal

Proceedings of FASL 22, 2014

Conference Presentations by Vesela Simeonova

On tense, aspect, and mood interaction in Bulgarian and Slavic

The syntax of content

Poster presented at GLOW , 2018

The Syntax of Evidentials in Azeri, Bulgarian, and Persian∗

EVIDENTIALITY is a linguistic category expressing the source of evidence that the speaker has for... more EVIDENTIALITY is a linguistic category expressing the source of evidence that the speaker has for the proposition, with a basic distinction between DIRECT and INDIRECT evidence, with the option of further subdivisions for each (Aikhenvald and Dixon (2003); Aikhenvald (2004); Willett (1988); Chafe and Nichols (1986) a.o.). In this paper, we discuss the syntactic structure of evidential constructions in Azeri (Turkic), Bulgarian (Slavic), and Persian (Iranian). What unites these three languages from three different language families is that they all express evidentiality within the Temporal-aspectual-modal system. The evidential marking is parasiting on TAM in two ways: (1) morphologically, through a morpheme used also to express Present perfect tense, which has been dubbed PERFECT OF EVIDENTIALITY by Izvorski (1997); and (2) semantically, because tense and evidentiality in these languages are inseparable, which has caused previous works to call the tenses in Bulgarian ‘definite’ and ...

The Syntax and Semantics of Light Attitudes

This dissertation argues for the existence of functional attitude predicates, light attitudes, su... more This dissertation argues for the existence of functional attitude predicates, light attitudes, such as light say and light see. Two phenomena are identified as functional attitudes: evidentiality and logophoric say-complementizers. I propose that reportative evidential markers and logophoric licensing complementizers are cross-linguistic variations of overt morphosyntactic realizations of the same light attitude: a functionalized predicate say. The parallel between evidentiality and logophoricity drawn here highlights their properties that have not been discussed or formally accounted for until now, and explains why they are in a typological complementary distribution across the world’s languages. At the same time, direct and reportative evidentials even within the same language exhibit a number of syntactic and semantic differences that have not been noticed in the literature before. I derive them from the analysis of reportative and direct evidentials as different kinds of functio...

The syntax of content

Overview. I argue that complementizers are not semantically transparent, but serve an important r... more Overview. I argue that complementizers are not semantically transparent, but serve an important role in mediating predicational relations in semantic composition. I follow a theoretical thread built by Kratzer (2006, 2016); Hacquard (2006); Moulton (2009, 2015), but provide the first overt empirical linguistic evidence in support for it thanks to data from Bulgarian. Data. Bulgarian has two morphologically distinct declarative complementizers, deto and če, that both serve to introduce finite embedded clauses. They are almost never in complementary distribution: če but not deto can introduce embedded clauses under attitude predicates, as in (1). Če but not deto can introduce noun modifying clauses, (3). Deto but not če is the complementizer used in relative clauses, (4). The only case where both če and deto are allowed is in the complements of emotive factive predicates, such as regret, be upset, be happy, be angry, etc., as shown in (2). (1) Ivan Ivan misli/ thinks/ kaza said [če/*d...

On the Semantics of Mirativity∗

The goal of this paper is to offer a semantics of the phenomenon of MIRATIVITY. Mirativity has be... more The goal of this paper is to offer a semantics of the phenomenon of MIRATIVITY. Mirativity has been defined as encoding the speaker’s surprise, unprepared mind, discovery of state of affairs that is unexpected, Slobin and Aksu (1982); DeLancey (1997, 2012); Aikhenvald (2012). Mirative sentences can involve one of the following: exclamative intonation (1), some lexical expression (2), grammaticalized dedicated particle (3), or grammaticalized non-dedicated particle (4).1

The syntax of evidentials in Azeri, Bulgarian, and Persian

Proceedings of CLA, 2015

On the semantics of mirativity

CLA proceedings, 2015

Flavors of predicate modification

Proceedings of CLS 54, 2018

The Inferential Future in Bulgarian: An Evidential Modal Proposal

Proceedings of FASL 22, 2014

On tense, aspect, and mood interaction in Bulgarian and Slavic

The syntax of content

Poster presented at GLOW , 2018