Krawczyk Thesis.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Inferred Propositions and the Expression of the Evidence Relation in Natural Language Evidentiality in Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo and English A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theoretical Linguistics By Elizabeth A. Krawczyk, M.S. Washington, DC February 2, 2012 Copyright © 2012 by Elizabeth A. Krawczyk All Rights Reserved ii Inferred Propositions and the Expression of the Evidence Relation in Natural Language Evidentiality in Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo and English Elizabeth A. Krawczyk, M.S. Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Paul Portner Abstract Evidentiality has usually been defined as the grammaticalized expression of a speaker’s evidence source for a proposition, where evidence is conceptualized as a speaker’s source- type for a particular proposition (Aikhenvald 2004). How this evidence source-type and the evidential are related has yet to be formally modeled in the formal semantics literature. In fact, defining evidence has been considered a problem not relevant to linguistics (Faller 2002). In most cases, what is meant by the term evidence is never even discussed. If it were the case that evidentials exhibited regular behavior, only marking those propo- sitions learned by whichever the particular type of evidence that it is considered to express, then the semantics of evidentials would not require further discussion. Things are not this simple, however, as there are a number of cases of evidence-evidential mismatch, where an evidential is used felicitously in spite of the fact that the speaker does not possess the cor- rect evidence source-type (Faller 2002; Krawczyk 2009, 2010). The source-type description of evidentials does not reflect the facts, and only describes the basic, typical cases. Oversim- plification of the evidential signal as source-type obscures interesting facts about evidentials and evidence. The goal of this dissertation is two-fold. The first is to provide a more thorough discussion of what it means to be evidence for evidentials; the second is to illustrate how a model of evidence can capture the semantics and pragmatics of evidentials. I formalize the notion of evidence relevant to evidentials as an evidence relation, an abductive inference to the best-fit explanation given what one observes, and propose that evidentials mark those iii propositions that are the best-fit explanation for the speaker’s observation. I use original data from Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo and English, as well as data from other publications, to illustrate how the evidence relation and best-fit explanation proposal can account for both the normal and problematic cases for the source-type approach, and provide insight into the nature of evidentiality in general. Index words: Evidentiality, Evidence, Abduction in Language, Typology, Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo, English iv Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been possible without the guidance of my advisor, Dr. Paul Portner. Paul always pushed me to be better, and even though there were times that I could not see the method to the madness, there is no doubt that in the end, I produced work better than even what I thought was my best. His stubborn belief in me persisted through those times when I didn’t have any in myself. For that there is no replacement, and I am forever grateful. I also owe a great deal of thanks to my committee member Dr. Graham Katz. Graham’s ability to see the gaps of any system never fails to impress me, and I was extremely lucky to have his attention and support not only with the dissertation, but also throughout my graduate training. He was both my mentor and comrade, and this project would not have been as successful without his kindness, wit and keen intellect. I also must thank my other committee member, Dr. Steven Kuhn. While Steve’s per- spective from philosophy was useful, his ability to be positive and always encouraging was something that I appreciate much more. I am very glad that he was able to contribute his time to serve on my committee. Without him, there would have been more tears than the normal amount usually associated with dissertation writing. The Yup’ik Eskimo community and the Jacobs Research Fund, which financed my field- work trip to Bethel, Alaska in 2009, made this entire project possible. I am very grateful to Steve Street at the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) in Bethel for allowing me access to the archived interview transcriptions. I am completely indebted to my Yup’ik Eskimo native language consultants, Davina Carl, Monica Shelden, and Julia Jimmie (Bethel AK) and Deanna Latham (Fairbanks AK), without whom, there would be no data to dis- cuss, and the contribution here much more narrow. I am also grateful to Sophie and Oscar v Alexie for offering a distance-learning Yup’ik course (via telephone!) through the University of Alaska Fairbanks Kuskokwim Campus, their help in providing a place to start once I got to Bethel, and a way to meet Jennifer Peeks (“Ayalgalria”) at the UAF Kuskokwim Campus who also helped me enormously, before getting to, and once in, Bethel. Minnie Sallisan Fritz gave me a great, fun place to stay and introduced me to Steve and Monica at the AVCP. Their kindness made me forget how cold and isolating western Alaska can be in winter. I also have a great personal support network to thank. I would have never finished if it were not for the dogged support of my parents, Hilary and Stephen, who, thankfully, were ignorant to what the process of writing and finishing a dissertation entailed. Their continued support and encouragement at all times made it possible for me to finish what I started. I am forever grateful that Dr. Ruth Kramer came to Georgetown in my dissertating years so I could have someone to let me know that will-power is a muscle that wears out. I also owe a great deal of thanks to Hillary Harner, who proofread most of this behemoth and muddled her way through my rather idiosyncratic writing style. Whatever mistakes that remain here are entirely my own. vi List of Abbreviations: Yup’ik Eskimo Morphology The following is a list of abbreviations for the Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo morphological categories that are used throughout the dissertation. This list does not include abbrevia- tions from examples taken from outside sources; for questions regarding other researchers’ notation, I refer the reader to the original source that is cited with the example. For more information on Yup’ik that is not included here, I refer the reader to Jacobson’s (1995) Yup’ik Eskimo grammar. ind Indicative Mood sub Subordinative int Interrogative Mood opt Optative Mood sub Subordinative Mood part Participial Mood conn Connective Mood abs Absolutive Case rel Relative Case abl Ablative-Modalis Case term Terminalis Case loc Locative Case vii sg Singular Person pl Plural Person dual Dual Person 1 First Person 2 Second Person 3 Third Person 4 Fourth Person (Obviative) {number,person}s Subject (transitive) {number,person}o Object (transitive) inf Inferential Evidential hrd Reportative/Hearsay Evidential fut Future Tense past Past Tense y/n-Q Yes/No Question = Indicates Morphological Enclitic - Indicates Morphological Postbase viii Table of Contents Acknowledgements . v List of Abbreviations: Yup’ik Eskimo Morphology . vii List of Figures . x List of Tables . xi Chapter 1 Introduction & Data: Evidentiality in Central Alaskan Yup’ik and English . 1 1.1 Central Alaskan Yup’ik: Grammar and Evidentiality . 6 1.2 English Evidentiality . 38 2 Indirect Evidentiality: Data and Formal Semantic Approaches . 63 2.1 Inferential Evidentiality . 64 2.2 Reportative Evidentiality . 84 2.3 Formal Semantic Analyses of Evidentials . 104 3 Formalizing a Notion of Evidence . 146 3.1 Typology of Evidentials and Evidence Source Types . 146 3.2 Limitations of Evidence Source Type Definitions . 161 3.3 The Evidence Signal of Evidentials and Epistemology . 175 3.4 The Evidence Signal of Evidentials and Conditional Probabilities . 181 3.5 The Evidential Value of Hearsay . 188 3.6 Evidence Contexts and Reasoning . 193 3.7 Best-fit Explanations and Evidential Evidence Relations . 212 4 Evidence Expressed: Evidentials . 230 4.1 Revising Initial Evidence Relations: Assumed and Apparent Evidentials 234 4.2 Evidence-Evidential Mismatch Cases and the Inferential (Apparent) Evidential . 245 4.3 RI ⌧ RH Interpretations of Apparently/Evidently (and Evidential Perfects) . 261 4.4 Evidence Relations and Clearly, Obviously . 263 4.5 The Hearsay Evidence Relation RH and Reportative Evidentials . 277 4.6 Pedro’s Hen: RH > RI ............................291 5 Conclusions, Remaining Issues and Future Directions . 295 Bibliography . 300 ix List of Figures 2.1 Willet’s (1988) Evidential Taxonomy . 63 2.2 Taxonomy of Reportative Evidentiality . 90 2.3 Formal Semantic Approaches to Evidentials . 104 2.4 Murray’s (2010) Initial Common Ground c0 ...................114 2.5 Murray’s (2010) Update to c0 with EVp . 114 2.6 Murray’s (2010) Proposal to Update to c1 . 115 2.7 Murray’s (2010) Initial Common Ground with Conjectural . 117 2.8 Murray’s (2010) Proposal and Evidential Restriction of the Conjectural . 117 2.9 Murray’s (2010) Proposal, Evidential and Modal Restriction of the Conjec- tural ........................................118 2.10 Murray’s (2010) Model of the Reportative Evidential Speech Act . 119 2.11 Davis et al.’s (2007) Manipulation of c⌧ with S[ev] . 143 3.1 Faller’s (2002) Evidential Maxim . 170 3.2 Evidence Relations and Evidentials (Preliminary) . 228 4.1 Evidence Relation Types and Evidentials (Revised) . 240 4.2 Hearsay Evidence in Two Dimensions . 285 x List of Tables 1.1 Summary of Yup’ik Evidentials and Restrictions .