Evidentiality and epistemic modality

Abstract

This paper attempts to explain the terminological and conceptual confusion of evidentiality and epistemic modality. It presents a functionally oriented semantic analysis which does not belong to a specific theoretical framework. It shows that the alleged epistemic speaker commitment of evidential expressions does not come from the specific evidential value or mode of information, but rather boils down to the speaker's and hearer's interpretation of the source of information. A source of information can be attributed different degrees of reliability, but these should not automatically be translated into degrees of epistemic speaker commitment. The latter involves an evaluation of the likelihood, which is quite different from the evaluation of the reliability of the source of information. Thus, the account presented here challenges previous analyses in which the labels "epistemic" and "evidential" are applied to linguistic expressions either in too broad a way or in too exclusive a way. The analysis also contrasts with accounts based on the "inclusion" or the "overlap" of the two categories. Finally, the paper also discusses Nuyts' (2004) claim that a clause can only have one qualification at a time.

Evidentiality and the semantics-pragmatics interface

“…Over the last years, the question of whether evidentiality is restricted to grammatical marking, which would preclude considering lexical expressions as evidentiality proper, has received due attention (Aikhenvald 2007;Squartini 2007Squartini , 2009Cornillie 2007Cornillie , 2009Wiemer 2010a). Many authors have argued that, given that evidentiality is a functional domain, from a functional-onomasiological perspective (cf.…”

“…Aikhenvald 2004;Cornillie 2009;Wiemer and Stathi 2010). Recently, Boye (2012), who also views epistemic modality and evidentiality as distinct domains, has proposed grouping them as subcategories of the conceptual domain of 'epistemicity' (rather in its etymologically primary sense of epistemologically relevant notions); under this heading epistemic (properly modal) meanings refer to 'epistemic support', while evidential meanings cover Evidentiality as substance domain and evidential markers considered in the database discursively primary use (e.g., inferential, illocutive CTPs) discursively secondary use conventionalized (= coded, inherent) evidentiality (as a substance domain) non-conventionalized (e.g., parentheticals) (= occasional, not inherent) Figure 1.…”

“…Second, one wonders why so little attention is paid to possible asymmetries (or restrictions) in the combinability between, for instance, certain 'modes of knowing' and 'sources of evidence'. The following two common combinations witness interesting restrictions, indeed: The other triangle has been brought to the fore by Cornillie (2009), where it is argued that the relation between epistemic and evidential functions may be (and often is) mediated by a third aspect of subjective (speaker-based) judgment, namely: an assessment of the reliability (or trustworthiness) of the source on which the speaker bases his/her judgment. See Figure 4: Epistemic meanings are defined by Cornillie (2009: 46), in quoting Nuyts (2001: 21), as the "evaluation of the chances that a certain hypothetical state of affairs under consideration (or some aspect of it) will occur, is occurring or has occurred in a possible world".…”

Sentential Evidentials in Englihs Medical Research Papers

“…Thus we can see that scholar have not agreed as to the very definition of evidentiality. Cornillie (2009) stresses the ontological status of evidentiality in relation to the proposition, and he defines evidentiality as "the functional category that refers to the perceptual and/or epistemological basis for making a speech act" (2009:45). He excludes satellite notions such as commitment, justification, and reliability as defining values of evidentials.…”

Stance as participant structure

“…Although in recent years the majority view about the status of evidentiality and epistemic modality appears to have settled in favour of conceptualising the two as separate categories (Cornillie 2009), they undeniably share strong links. Crosslinguistically, constructions as in (1a), combining an evidential and an explicit modal meaning, are increasingly attested (San Roque and Bergqvist 2015).…”