Evidentiality, modality and probability

McCready, Eric; Ogata, Norry

doi:10.1007/s10988-007-9017-7

Cited by 92 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Like Kratzer (1991), Izvorski (1997, Garrett (2000), Ehrich (2001), Rooryck (2001a), McCready and Asher (2005), McCready and Ogata (2006) and Faller (to appear), we argue that at least some evidentials in some languages are epistemic modals. Thus, it cannot be right that evidentiality is fundamentally distinct from epistemic modality, as has been argued by e.g., de Haan (1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets

Matthewson

Davis

Rullmann

2007

LIVY

159

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that evidential clitics in St'át'imcets (a.k.a. Lillooet; Northern Interior Salish) introduce quantification over possible worlds and must be analyzed as epistemic modals. We thus add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that the functions of encoding information source and encoding epistemic modality are not necessarily distinct. However, St'át'imcets evidentials differ from English modal auxiliaries not only in that the former explicitly encode the source of the speaker's evidence, but also in that they do not encode differences in quantificational force. We therefore argue that distinguishing quantificational strength is not an intrinsic property of modal elements.With respect to the syntax-semantics interface, we argue on the basis of data from St'át'imcets against attempts to establish a universally fixed position for evidentials in the functional hierarchy. We conclude that evidentiality is not a homogeneous category, either semantically or syntactically. On the semantic side, cross-linguistically and even * We are very grateful to St'át'imcets consultants Gertrude Ned, Laura Thevarge, Rose Agnes Whitley and the late Beverley Frank. We are also very grateful to Rose-Marie Déchaine, Martina

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets

Matthewson

Davis

Rullmann

2007

LIVY

159

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 Psych predicates generally require the evidential marker soo-(da) with a non-speaker subject (see McCready and Ogata 2007). Another issue in Japanese is that the direct passive also has the same verbal suffix -(r)are that appears in the affected experiencer construction (58a). However, the direct passive does not necessarily involve an interpretation of psychological affectedness, as (58b) shows (see Shibatani 1994b andOshima 2006 for the same point).…”

Section: More On Japanesementioning

confidence: 99%

Affected Experiencers

Bosse

Bruening

Yamada

2012

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous languages permit an NP that is not selected by the verb to be added to a clause, with several different possible interpretations. We divide such nonselected arguments into possessor, benefactive, attitude holder, and affected experiencer categories, on the basis of syntactic and semantic differences between them. We propose a formal analysis of the affected experiencer construction. In our account, a syntactic head Aff(ect) introduces the experiencer argument, and adds a conventional implicature to the effect that any event of the type denoted by its syntactic sister is the source of the experiencer's psychological experience. Hence, our proposal involves two tiers of meaning: the at-issue meaning of the sentence, and some not-atissue meaning (an implicature). A syntactic head can introduce material on both tiers. Additionally, we allow two parameters of variation: (i) the height of the attachment of Aff, and (ii) how much of the semantics is at-issue and how much is an implicature. We show that these two parameters account for the attested variation across our sample of languages, as well as the significant commonalities among them. Our analysis also accounts for significant differences between affected experiencers and the other types of non-selected arguments, and we also note a generalization to the effect that purely not-at-issue non-selected arguments can only be weak or clitic pronouns.

show abstract

“…First, there is the class of illocutionary-like evidentials which imply no commitments to the scope proposition. Examples include -si in Cuzco Quechua (Faller 2002, Faller 2011, -sėstse in Cheyenne (Murray 2010), and soo-da in Japanese (McCready & Ogata 2007). In addition, there is the class of modal-like evidentials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidentiality and temporal distance learning

Koev

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The grammatical category of evidentiality is traditionally defined as marking evidence type or related concepts (Anderson 1986, Willett 1988, Aikhenvald 2004. I argue against this received view as I show that evidential morphemes in Bulgarian mark the temporal distance between the time at which the speaker learned the described proposition and the topic time. I also demonstrate that Bulgarian evidentials represent projective/backgrounded content that is informative but does not affect the described proposition, which is plainly entailed. The latter fact especially has important typological and theoretical consequences. The proposal is formalized in a logic that extends Dynamic Predicate Logic by adding propositional variables (cf. AnderBois et al. 2010).

show abstract

Evidentiality, modality and probability

Cited by 92 publications

References 24 publications

Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets

Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets

Affected Experiencers

Evidentiality and temporal distance learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About