Book contents
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy: A Historical Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Reporting and Ascribing
- Part II Describing and Referring
- Part III Narrating and Structuring
- Part IV Locating and Inferring
- 7 Present Tense
- 8 Evidentiality: Unifying Nominal and Propositional Domains
- Part V Typologizing and Ontologizing
- Part VI Determining and Questioning
- Part VII Arguing and Rejecting
- Part VIII Implying and (Pre)supposing
- Index
- References
8 - Evidentiality: Unifying Nominal and Propositional Domains
from Part IV - Locating and Inferring
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 October 2022
By
Edited by
Book contents
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy: A Historical Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Reporting and Ascribing
- Part II Describing and Referring
- Part III Narrating and Structuring
- Part IV Locating and Inferring
- 7 Present Tense
- 8 Evidentiality: Unifying Nominal and Propositional Domains
- Part V Typologizing and Ontologizing
- Part VI Determining and Questioning
- Part VII Arguing and Rejecting
- Part VIII Implying and (Pre)supposing
- Index
- References
Summary
In the vast literature on evidentiality, empirical and theoretical focus has mostly been on propositional evidentiality, i.e. evidentials that scope over propositions. In this work, we undertake a crosslinguistic comparative study of propositional and nominal evidentiality, i.e. evidentials that scope over nominals, and are fused with the determiner/demonstrative systems or with nominal tense markers. I demonstrate that there are cohesive parallels in how flavors of both propositional and nonpropositional evidentiality interact with verbal and nominal tense and aspect. I use tools from modal logic to show that we can (i) unify the subdomains of evidentiality using modal accessibility relations while also preserving important distinctions between them, (ii) use the same tools to compositionally capture the interaction between evidentials and tense and aspect, and (iii) have the representation of an agent’s certainty of belief be reflected in quantificational force. Concretely, directly encoding the subtype of evidence in the semantics, I argue that three distinct evidential flavors embody three distinct spatio-temporal modal accessibility relations: direct (sensory) evidentials are temporally-sensitive historical necessity relations (yielding the factive nature of perception); inferential evidentials of pure reasoning are epistemic accessibility relations; inferential evidentials of results are a combination of the above two.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 243 - 274Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
AnderBois, S. (2014). On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. In Snider, T., D’Antonio, S., & Weigand, M. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 24 (pp. 234–254).Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1991). Intentionality, perception, and causality. In Lepore, E. & van Gulick, R. (Eds.), John Searle and His Critics (pp. 149–158). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bashir, E. (2006). Evidentiality in South Asian languages. In Butt, M., & King, T. H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, Konstanz University. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bhadra, D. (2017). Evidentiality and Questions: Bangla at the Interfaces. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bhadra, D. (2018). Evidentials are syntax-sensitive: The view from Bangla. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
Bhadra, D. (2020). The semantics of evidentials in questions. Journal of Semantics, 37(3), 367–423.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J., Kaplan, J. P., & Ward, G. (2007). Functional compositionality and the interaction of discourse constraints. Language, 2007, 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (1991). Vision and intentional content. In Lepore, E. & van Gulick, R. (Eds.), John Searle and His Critics (pp. 195–214). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Dahl, Ö. (1989). The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chung, K.-S. (2007). Spatial deictic tense and evidentials in Korean. Natural Language Semantics, 15(3), 187–219.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C. (2001). Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In Beaver, D., Kaufmann, S., Clark, B., & Casillas, L. (Eds.), Stanford Papers on Semantics. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cox, J. W. R. (1971). An analysis of perceiving in terms of the causation of beliefs. In Sibley, F. N. (Ed.), Perception: A Philosophical Symposium (pp. 23–64). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Daguman, J. (2018). The reportative in the languages of the Philippines. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality (pp. 674–692). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (1992). Perceptual content and local supervenience. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 92, 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C., Potts, C., & Speas, M. (2007). The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 17 (pp. 71–88).Google Scholar
Delancey, S. (2018). Evidentiality in Tibetic. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality (pp. 580–594). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2004). The Jarawara Language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. (1990). Seeing, believing, and knowing. In Osherson, D. N., Kosslyn, S. M., & Hollerbach, J. M. (Eds.), Visual Cognition and Action: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol. 2 (pp. 129–148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Faller, M. (2004). The deictic core of ‘non-experienced past’ in Cuzco Quechua. Journal of Semantics, 21(1), 45–85.Google Scholar
Fleck, D. W. (2007). Evidentiality and double tense in Matses. Language, 2007, 589–614.Google Scholar
François, A. (2005). A typological overview of Mwotlap, an Oceanic language of Vanuatu. Linguistic Typology, 9, 115–146.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. (2018). Where do evidentials come from? In Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality (pp. 124–147). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, E. J. (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P., & White, A. R. (1961). Symposium: The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 35, 121–168.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1962). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 35, 143–168.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, A. (2016). Evidential determiners in Nivaĉle. Anthropological Linguistics, 57(4), 412–443.Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. (2011). Modality. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp. 1484–1515). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haude, K. (2004). Nominal tense marking in Movima. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 21, 80–90.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. E., & Cresswell, M. J. (1986). A Companion to Modal Logic. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. E., & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). A New Introduction to Modal Logic. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Huijsmans, M., Reisinger, D. K. E., & Matthewson, L. (2020). Evidentials in the nominal domain: A Speasian analysis of ɁayɁauθəm determiners. Sinn und Bedeutung, 25, 751–768.Google Scholar
Ivan, R.-R., & Özyildiz, D. (2018). The temporal presuppositions of Somali definite determiners. Sinn und Bedeutung, 21, 623–642.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Lawson, A. (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 7 (pp. 222–239).Google Scholar
Jacques, G. (2018). Non-propositional evidentiality. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality (pp. 109–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1979). The Logic of Historical Necessity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, S., Condoravdi, C., & Harizanov, V. (2006). Formal approaches to modality. In Frawley, W. (Ed.), The Expression of Modality (pp. 71–106). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Koev, T. (2016). Evidentiality, learning events and spatiotemporal distance: The view from Bulgarian. Journal of Semantics, 34(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow, A. & Wunderlich, D. (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 7, 639–650. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2002). The notional category of modality. In Portner, P. H. & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings (pp. 289–323). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Krawczyk, E. A. (2012). Inferred Propositions and the Expression of the Evidence Relation in Natural Language: Evidentiality in Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo and English. PhD thesis, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Lafer-Sousa, R., Hermann, K. L., & Conway, B. R. (2015). Striking individual differences in color perception uncovered by ‘the dress’ photograph. Current Biology, 25(13), R545–R546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lecarme, J. (2008). Tense and modality in nominals. In Gueron, J. & Lecarme, J. (Eds.), Time and Modality (pp. 195–225). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2011). The Korean evidential -te: A modal analysis. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 8, 287–311.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1980). Veridical hallucination and prosthetic vision. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 58(3), 239–249.Google Scholar
Littell, P., Matthewson, L., & Peterson, T. (2010). On the semantics of conjectural questions. Evidence from Evidentials, 28, 89–104.Google Scholar
Lowe, I. (1999). Nambiquara. In Dixon, R. M. & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Eds.), The Amazonian Languages (pp. 268–291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L., Davis, H., & Rullmann, H. (2007). Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7(1), 201–254.Google Scholar
McCready, E. (2014). What is evidence in natural language? In McCready, E., Yabushita, K., & Yoshimoto, K. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 155–180). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1991). Intentionality “de re.” In Lepore, E. & van Gulick, R. (Eds.), John Searle and His Critics (pp. 215–225). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, S. E. (2010). Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD thesis, Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Musto, D., & Konolige, K. (1993). Reasoning about perception. AI Communications, 6(3–4), 207–212.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., & Sadler, L. (2004). Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspective. Language, 2004, 776–806.Google Scholar
Owens, D., Owens, D. J., et al. (1992). Causes and Coincidences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pancheva, R., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2018). On the role of person features in the evidential-temporal connection. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 64, 673–708.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. (2008). The ordering source and graded modality in Gitksan epistemic modals. In Arndt Riester & Torgrim Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 13. Stuttgart (University of Stuttgart).Google Scholar
Peterson, T. (2010). Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. (2012). An Ordering Semantics for Gitksan Modal Evidentials. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Prinz, J. (2006). Beyond appearances: The content of sensation and perception. Perceptual Experience, 28, 434–460.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U., & Schenner, M. (2007). Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. Sinn und Bedeutung, 11, 525–539.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. L. (2000). Typology of Shina pronouns. Berliner Indologische Studien, 13(14), 201–213.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. L., & Kohistani, R. (2001). Nominal inflections in the Shina of Indus Kohistan. Acta Orientalia, 62, 107–143.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1991). Reference and intentionality. In Lepore, E. & van Gulick, R. (Eds.), John Searle and His Critics (pp. 227–241). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Aksu, A. A. (1982). Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In Hopper, P. J. (Ed.),Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 185–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smirnova, A. (2012). Evidentiality in Bulgarian: Temporality, epistemic modality, and information source. Journal of Semantics, 30(4), 479–532.Google Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. (2018). Evidentiality in Korean. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality (pp. 693–708). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soteriou, M. (2000). The particularity of visual perception. European Journal of Philosophy, 8(2), 173–189.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. H. (2002). Combinations of tense and modality. In Gabbay, D. & Guenthner, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic (pp. 205–234). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2006). The Temporal Semantics of Noun Phrases: Evidence from Guaraní. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2007). Nominal tense? The meaning of Guaraní nominal temporal markers. Language, 2007, 831–869.Google Scholar
Tung, T.-H., et al. (1964). A Descriptive Study of the Tsou Language. Nankang: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Van Eijk, J. (1997). The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. S. (2010). Must… stay… strong! Natural Language Semantics, 18(4), 351–383.Google Scholar
Werner, T. (2006). Future and non-future modal sentences. Natural Language Semantics, 14(3), 235–255.Google Scholar
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1), 51–97.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by