Heterogeneity and Uniformity in the Evidential Domain
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Natalia Korotkova 2016 © Copyright by Natalia Korotkova 2016 ABSTRACTOFTHE DISSERTATION Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain by Natalia Korotkova Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2016 Professor Dominique L. Sportiche, Co-chair Professor Yael Sharvit, Co-chair The dissertation is devoted to the formal mechanisms that govern the use of evidentials, expressions of natural language that denote the source of information for the proposition conveyed by a sentence. Specifically, I am concerned with putative cases of semantic variation in evidentiality and with its previously unnoticed semantic uniformity. An ongoing debate in this area concerns the relation between evidentiality and epistemic modality. According to one line of research, all evidentials are garden variety epistemic modals. According to another, evidentials across languages fall into two semantic classes: (i) modal evidentials; and (ii) illocutionary evidentials, which deal with the structure of speech acts. The dissertation provides a long-overdue discussion of analytical options proposed for evidentials, and shows that the debate is lacking formally-explicit tools that would differenti- ate between the two classes. Current theories, even though motivated by superficially different data, make in fact very similar predictions. I reduce the cases of apparent semantic variation to factors independent from evidentiality, such as the syntax of clausal complementation, and show that these cases do not resolve the modal-illocutionary debate. I further propose novel empirical diagnostics that would identify modal-hood and speech-act-hood. I then turn to the many traits that evidentials within and across languages have in common. I argue that evidentials belong to the class of subjective expressions, along with first-person pain and attitude reports, and attribute to them a unified semantics of first-person mental ii states. The subjectivity of evidentials is contributed by two components: (i) the first-person component that is part of the conventional meaning of evidentials, analyzed as indexicality; and (ii) the mental state component that is rooted in the properties of cognitive processes described by evidentials (and other subjective expressions), such as perception and introspec- tion. I show that the subjectivity of evidentials restricts their behavior across a range of environ- ments in a uniform way. In dialogues, subjectivity accounts for the resistance to direct denials, a property known as non-challengeability and previously seen as supporting the not-at-issue analysis of evidentiality. In attitude reports, subjectivity disallows ascribing evidence to a third party and bans evidentials from amnesiac scenarios, used in the literature on attitudes as a litmus test for ‘de se’. In information-seeking questions, subjectivity creates an effect of oblig- atory shift to the addressee because it is incompatible with speaker-oriented interpretations wherein the speaker does not have access to their own epistemic state. I further show that ev- identials may be speaker-oriented in non-canonical questions. That evidentials shift has been previously hardwired to their syntax and/or semantics, which fails to explain the lack of shift in non-canonical questions. If language is in some ways a window on the mind, evidentiality is a natural meeting point for several areas, including at least linguistics, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, and epistemology. But so far, expressions of evidentiality have been studied in-depth almost ex- clusively within formal semantics. Current linguistic theories of evidentiality are disconnected from theories of knowledge and models of reasoning. By deriving the linguistic behavior of evidentials from non-linguistic properties of experiences they describe, this dissertation makes a necessary first step towards filling this gap. iii The dissertation of Natalia Korotkova is approved. Pranav Anand Roumyana Pancheva Timothy A. Stowell Yael Sharvit, Committee Co-chair Dominique L. Sportiche, Committee Co-chair University of California, Los Angeles 2016 iv For Yakov Testelets v TABLEOF CONTENTS List of Figures .............................................. xiii List of Tables ............................................... xiv List of Glosses .............................................. xvi Acknowledgments ........................................... xvii Introduction ............................................... 1 1 Key facts and synopsis of the proposal ............................ 6 1.1 Kinds of source........................................6 1.2 Types of category.......................................9 1.3 Variation............................................ 12 1.4 The dissertation in a nutshell................................ 16 1.4.1 Summary of the proposal.............................. 17 1.4.1.1 Subjectivity................................ 17 1.4.1.2 Basic toolkit................................ 25 1.4.1.3 Proposal.................................. 29 1.4.2 Individual chapters................................. 32 1.4.3 Outlook........................................ 36 I Analytical and empirical variation 38 2 Semantics for evidentials within and across languages ................. 39 2.1 Introduction.......................................... 40 vi 2.2 Modal treatment of evidentials: Izvorski(1997).................... 42 2.3 Illocutionary treatment of evidentials: Faller(2002).................. 46 2.4 Formal semantics for evidentials: cross-linguistic applications............ 50 2.4.1 Views on the cross-linguistic variation...................... 50 2.4.2 Quirk #1: non-commitment............................ 52 2.4.2.1 The pattern................................ 52 2.4.2.2 An illocutionary analysis........................ 53 2.4.2.3 A modal analysis............................. 54 2.4.2.4 Discussion................................. 57 2.4.3 Quirk #2: quotative readings........................... 59 2.4.3.1 The pattern................................ 59 2.4.3.2 An illocutionary analysis........................ 61 2.4.3.3 Discussion................................. 63 2.4.4 Recap.......................................... 66 2.5 General discussion...................................... 68 3 The embedding puzzle ...................................... 73 3.1 Empirical landscape..................................... 74 3.2 Background........................................... 78 3.2.1 Preliminary remarks................................. 78 3.2.2 Previous approaches................................. 79 3.2.2.1 Empirical problems........................... 79 3.2.2.2 Conceptual considerations....................... 81 3.3 A case study from Turkish.................................. 83 3.3.1 Complementation strategies............................ 84 vii 3.3.2 Embedding evidentials............................... 88 3.3.3 Recap.......................................... 92 3.4 Proposal............................................. 92 3.4.1 Nominalizations................................... 93 3.4.2 Semantic/pragmatic licensing: Schenner(2010b).............. 96 3.4.2.1 Outlook................................... 96 3.4.2.2 Empirical problems........................... 100 3.4.3 Recap.......................................... 105 3.5 General discussion...................................... 107 3.5.1 Morphosyntactic variation = semantic variation............... 108 6 3.5.2 New outlook on the cross-linguistic picture................... 109 3.5.3 Embedding as a window on semantics?..................... 113 Appendix A: Embedded tense in Turkish............................ 116 Appendix B: Embedded modals in Turkish........................... 118 II A call for subjectivity 122 4 Non-challengeability in dialogues ............................... 123 4.1 Introduction.......................................... 124 4.2 Route 1 to direct denial: NAI content........................... 127 4.2.1 Issues in discourse.................................. 127 4.2.2 Non-challengeability of NAI............................ 128 4.2.3 ER as NAI....................................... 130 4.2.4 Recap.......................................... 132 4.3 Route 2 to direct denial: Subjectivity........................... 132 viii 4.3.1 Subjectivity...................................... 133 4.3.2 Non-challengeability of SC............................. 134 4.3.3 ER as SC........................................ 136 4.3.4 Recap.......................................... 142 4.4 Other types of denial..................................... 142 4.4.1 Denial and NAI.................................... 143 4.4.2 Denial and SC..................................... 146 4.4.3 Denial and the ER.................................. 148 4.4.4 Recap.......................................... 149 4.5 Performance disagreement................................. 151 4.6 General discussion...................................... 154 Appendix C: Answerhood..................................... 157 Appendix D: Projection....................................... 159 Projection............................................ 159 Projection = NAI....................................... 160 6 Projective behavior of evidentials............................. 162 5 First-person