DOCSLIB.ORG

Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface By Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface by Tyler Roy Gösta Peterson B.Mus., University of British Columbia, 1999 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Linguistics) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April, 2010 c Tyler Roy Gösta Peterson 2010 Abstract The aim of this dissertation is to provide an empirically driven, theoretically informed investigation of how speakers of Gitksan, a Tsimshianic language spoken in the northwest coast of Canada, express knowledge about the world around them. There are three main goals that motivate this investigation, summarized below: (1) (i.) To provide the first detailed description of the evidential and modal system in Gitksan. (ii.) To provide a formal semantic and pragmatic account of this system that adequately explains the meanings of the modals and evidentials, as well as how they are used in discourse. (iii.) To identify and examine the specific properties the Gitksan evidential/modal system brings to bear on current theories of semantics and pragmatics, as well as the consequences this analysis has on the study of modality and evidentiality cross-linguistically. In addition to documenting the evidential and modal meanings in Gitksan, I test and work through a variety of theoretical tools from the literature designed to investigate evidentiality and modality in a language. This begins by determining what level of mean- ing the individual evidentials in Gitksan operate on. The current state of research into the connection between evidentiality and epistemic modality has identified two different types of evidentials defined by the level of meaning they operate on: propositional and illocutionary evidentials. These two types correspond to a distinction between modal evidentials and non-modal evidentials respectively. I show that Gitksan has both modal ii Abstract and non-evidentials. This leads to an analysis where the Gitksan modal evidentials are treated as a specialized type of epistemic modals, and the non-modal evidentials are sentential force specifiers. I also identify various features of the evidential system that bring specific issues to bear upon current theories of the semantics and pragmatics of modality. This has four outcomes: first, I present a novel analysis of variable modal force in modals with fixed quantification: variable modal force in Gitksan modal evidentials is determined by the ordering source. Secondly, I discuss Conjectural Questions: when a modal evidential is added to a question it reduces the interrogative force of the question. This follows from the modal semantics of evidentials. Thirdly, I introduce the notion of Pragmatic block- ing: modal and non-modal evidentials interact in discourse contexts, and implicate a speaker’s attitude towards the evidence they have for a proposition. And fourthly, I de- velop the first formal analysis of mirativity and non-literal uses of evidentials, analyzing them both as cases of conversational implicature. iii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................ ii Table of Contents .................................. iv List of Tables ....................................x List of Figures .................................... xi List of Abbreviations ................................ xii Acknowledgements ................................. xiv 1 Introduction ...................................1 1.1 Goals of the Investigation . .1 1.2 Empirical Context . .4 1.2.1 Gitksan and the Tsimshianic Languages . .5 1.2.2 Gitksan Orthography . .9 1.2.3 The Basic Features of Gitksan Morphology and Syntax . .9 1.2.3.1 Morphology . .9 1.2.3.2 Syntax and Clause Types . 10 1.2.4 Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Gitksan . 11 1.2.5 Studies on Evidentiality . 14 1.3 Theoretical Context . 15 1.3.1 The Relations Between Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality . 17 1.3.2 The Theoretical Tools . 19 iv Table of Contents 1.3.2.1 Determining Levels of Meaning . 20 1.3.2.2 Static Semantics: Evidentials as Epistemic Modals . 21 1.3.2.3 Dynamic Semantics: Evidentials as Sentential Force Spec- ifiers . 23 1.4 Structure of the Thesis . 25 1.4.1 A Description of Evidentials in Gitksan . 25 1.4.2 Modal Evidentials . 26 1.4.2.1 A Challenge: Variable Modal Force . 27 1.4.2.2 Conjectural Questions . 28 1.4.3 Non-Modal Evidentials . 29 1.4.4 Evidentiality and Modality at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface 30 1.4.4.1 Pragmatic Blocking . 31 1.4.4.2 Mirativity and Metaphor . 32 1.5 Methodology . 34 2 Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan ............ 37 2.1 The Issues . 37 2.2 The Plan . 38 2.3 Describing Evidentiality . 39 2.4 Describing Evidentiality in Gitksan . 41 2.5 The Reportative =kat ............................ 47 2.5.1 The Evidential Meanings of =kat .................. 48 2.5.2 A Note on the Social Uses of =kat ................. 55 2.6 The Inferential =ima ............................ 57 2.6.1 The Evidential Meanings of =ima ................. 58 2.6.2 The Modal Interpretations of =ima ................ 62 2.7 The Morphosyntactic Distribution of =kat and =ima ........... 64 2.8 The Sensory inferential nakw' ........................ 72 2.8.1 The Evidential Meanings of nakw' ................. 73 v Table of Contents 2.8.2 The Pragmatic Uses of nakw' : Mirativity and Metaphor . 84 2.8.3 The Morphosyntactic Distribution of nakw' ............ 86 2.9 Interactions . 87 2.10 Summary . 92 3 Evidentiality and Levels of Meaning .................... 93 3.1 The Issues . 93 3.2 The Plan . 95 3.3 Evidentials as Epistemic Modals . 96 3.4 Formal Pragmatic Approaches to Evidentiality . 103 3.4.1 Speech Act Theory . 103 3.4.2 Evidential Hierarchies and Context Dependence . 107 3.4.3 Evidentials as Sentential-Force Specifiers . 108 3.5 Determining Levels of Meaning: The Tests . 109 3.5.1 Tests Regarding Truth . 111 3.5.1.1 Known Truth/Falsity . 111 3.5.1.2 Assent/Dissent . 114 3.5.1.3 Cancellability of Evidence Type Requirement . 118 3.5.2 Embeddability and Scope . 118 3.5.2.1 Embeddability . 118 3.5.2.2 Scope with Respect to Interrogatives . 121 3.5.2.3 Interaction with Negation . 123 3.5.3 Interim Summary . 123 3.6 Gitksan Evidentials: Propositional or Illocutionary Operators? . 125 3.6.1 Tests Regarding Truth . 125 3.6.1.1 Known Truth/Falsity . 126 3.6.1.2 Assent/Dissent . 132 3.6.1.3 Cancellability of Evidence Type Requirement . 136 3.6.2 Scope and Embeddability . 137 vi Table of Contents 3.6.2.1 Embeddability . 137 3.6.2.2 Scope with Respect to Interrogatives . 145 3.6.2.3 Interaction with Negation . 149 3.7 Summary . 150 4 The Semantics of the Modal Evidentials =ima and =kat ....... 152 4.1 The Issues . 152 4.2 The Plan . 155 4.3 A Modal Analysis of =ima and =kat .................... 156 4.4 The Variable Modal Force of =ima and =kat ............... 160 4.4.1 The Variability of =ima ....................... 161 4.4.1.1 Context-Conditioned Modal Force . 161 4.4.1.2 Modals in Coordinated Sentences . 164 4.4.1.3 Evidence Type and Modal Force . 166 4.4.2 The Variability of =kat ....................... 169 4.4.3 Default Modal Force . 171 4.4.4 The Ordering Source in Deriving Variable Modal Force . 172 4.4.4.1 Ordering Sources with Fixed Quantification . 175 4.4.4.2 An Emerging Theoretical Typology: Variable Force in St’át’imcets Modals . 183 4.4.4.3 Strengthening and Weakening in Paradigms . 188 4.4.5 Interim Summary . 191 4.5 Modal =ima and Conjectural Questions . 192 4.5.1 The Properties of Conjectural Questions . 194 4.5.2 An Analysis of Conjectural Questions . 198 4.5.3 Conjectural Questions in Other Languages, and with Other Evi- dentials . 202 4.6 Summary . 205 vii Table of Contents 5 The Pragmatics of Evidentiality in Gitksan ................ 207 5.1 The Issues . 208 5.2 The Plan . 210 5.3 The Dynamic Semantics of nakw' ...................... 212 5.3.1 Pragmatic Presupposition . 213 5.3.2 Context Change Potential . 215 5.3.3 Presupposing Sensory Evidence and the Common Ground . 216 5.3.4 The Context Change Potential of nakw' (p) ............. 219 5.4 nakw' as a Sentential Force Specifier . 220 5.4.1 A Case for Evidential Sentential Force . 221 5.4.2 Evidentials as Sentential Force Specifiers (Portner 2006) . 224 5.4.2.1 The Model of Discourse . 226 5.4.2.2 Meanings of the Evidentials as Update Functions . 227 5.4.2.3 nakw' as an Evidential Sentential Force Specifier . 228 5.4.2.4 Interaction Between the Evidential Modals =ima and =kat ............................ 229 5.4.3 nakw' is Not an Illocutionary Force Modifier . 232 5.5 Explaining the Interaction Between =ima and nakw' : Pragmatic Blocking 234 5.6 The Extended Pragmatics of nakw' : Mirativity and Metaphor . 238 5.6.1 Approaching the Category of Mirativity . 243 5.6.1.1 Evidentiality and Mirativity . 244 5.6.1.2 Mirativity and Epistemic Modality . 248 5.6.2 An Analysis of Mirativity as Conversational Implicature . 251 5.6.3 Nonliteral Uses of Evidentials . 256 5.7 Summary . 263 6 Conclusion .................................... 265 6.1 Revisiting the Relations . 269 6.1.1 The Conceptual Relations . 269 viii Table of Contents 6.1.2 The Encoding Relations . 269 6.1.3 The Formal Semantic Relations . 270 6.1.4 The Formal Pragmatic Relations . 272 Bibliography ..................................... 274 Appendices A Gitksan Orthography .............................. 285 ix List of Tables 1.1 Lexically vs. contextually determined modal meaning and force . 28 2.1 A sample typology in Aikhenvald’s categorization of evidential meanings 40 2.2 The evidential system in Nisgha’a (Tarpent 1987) . 42 2.3 A description of the evidential system in Gitksan . 42 3.1 Test results for St’át’imcets and Quechua . 124 3.2 A Propositional/Illocutionary typology based on the levels of meaning tests.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Root Modality and Thematic Relations in Tagalog and English*
    Proceedings of SALT 26: 775–794, 2016 On root modality and thematic relations in Tagalog and English* Maayan Abenina-Adar Nikos Angelopoulos UCLA UCLA Abstract The literature on modality discusses how context and grammar interact to produce different flavors of necessity primarily in connection with functional modals e.g., English auxiliaries. In contrast, the grammatical properties of lexical modals (i.e., thematic verbs) are less understood. In this paper, we use the Tagalog necessity modal kailangan and English need as a case study in the syntax-semantics of lexical modals. Kailangan and need enter two structures, which we call ‘thematic’ and ‘impersonal’. We show that when they establish a thematic dependency with a subject, they express necessity in light of this subject’s priorities, and in the absence of an overt thematic subject, they express necessity in light of priorities endorsed by the speaker. To account for this, we propose a single lexical entry for kailangan / need that uniformly selects for a ‘needer’ argument. In thematic constructions, the needer is the overt subject, and in impersonal constructions, it is an implicit speaker-bound pronoun. Keywords: modality, thematic relations, Tagalog, syntax-semantics interface 1 Introduction In this paper, we observe that English need and its Tagalog counterpart, kailangan, express two different types of necessity depending on the syntactic structure they enter. We show that thematic constructions like (1) express necessities in light of priorities of the thematic subject, i.e., John, whereas impersonal constructions like (2) express necessities in light of priorities of the speaker. (1) John needs there to be food left over.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Modality, Mind, and Mathematics
    Epistemic Modality, Mind, and Mathematics Hasen Khudairi June 20, 2017 c Hasen Khudairi 2017, 2020 All rights reserved. 1 Abstract This book concerns the foundations of epistemic modality. I examine the nature of epistemic modality, when the modal operator is interpreted as con- cerning both apriority and conceivability, as well as states of knowledge and belief. The book demonstrates how epistemic modality relates to the compu- tational theory of mind; metaphysical modality; deontic modality; the types of mathematical modality; to the epistemic status of undecidable proposi- tions and abstraction principles in the philosophy of mathematics; to the apriori-aposteriori distinction; to the modal profile of rational propositional intuition; and to the types of intention, when the latter is interpreted as a modal mental state. Each essay is informed by either epistemic logic, modal and cylindric algebra or coalgebra, intensional semantics or hyperin- tensional semantics. The book’s original contributions include theories of: (i) epistemic modal algebras and coalgebras; (ii) cognitivism about epistemic modality; (iii) two-dimensional truthmaker semantics, and interpretations thereof; (iv) the ground-theoretic ontology of consciousness; (v) fixed-points in vagueness; (vi) the modal foundations of mathematical platonism; (vii) a solution to the Julius Caesar problem based on metaphysical definitions availing of notions of ground and essence; (viii) the application of epistemic two-dimensional semantics to the epistemology of mathematics; and (ix) a modal logic for rational intuition. I develop, further, a novel approach to conditions of self-knowledge in the setting of the modal µ-calculus, as well as novel epistemicist solutions to Curry’s and the liar paradoxes.
    [Show full text]
  • Representing-Time-An-Essay-On-Temporality-As
    Representing Time To commemorate the centenary of J. E. McTaggart’s ‘The unreality of time’ (1908) Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality K. M. JASZCZOLT 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # K. M. Jaszczolt 2009 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book
    [Show full text]
  • 30. Tense Aspect Mood 615
    30. Tense Aspect Mood 615 Richards, Ivor Armstrong 1936 The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rockwell, Patricia 2007 Vocal features of conversational sarcasm: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psycho- linguistic Research 36: 361−369. Rosenblum, Doron 5. March 2004 Smart he is not. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/smart-he-is-not- 1.115908. Searle, John 1979 Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seddiq, Mirriam N. A. Why I don’t want to talk to you. http://notguiltynoway.com/2004/09/why-i-dont-want- to-talk-to-you.html. Singh, Onkar 17. December 2002 Parliament attack convicts fight in court. http://www.rediff.com/news/ 2002/dec/17parl2.htm [Accessed 24 July 2013]. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Voegele, Jason N. A. http://www.jvoegele.com/literarysf/cyberpunk.html Voyer, Daniel and Cheryl Techentin 2010 Subjective acoustic features of sarcasm: Lower, slower, and more. Metaphor and Symbol 25: 1−16. Ward, Gregory 1983 A pragmatic analysis of epitomization. Papers in Linguistics 17: 145−161. Ward, Gregory and Betty J. Birner 2006 Information structure. In: B. Aarts and A. McMahon (eds.), Handbook of English Lin- guistics, 291−317. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Rachel Giora, Tel Aviv, (Israel) 30. Tense Aspect Mood 1. Introduction 2. Metaphor: EVENTS ARE (PHYSICAL) OBJECTS 3. Polysemy, construal, profiling, and coercion 4. Interactions of tense, aspect, and mood 5. Conclusion 6. References 1. Introduction In the framework of cognitive linguistics we approach the grammatical categories of tense, aspect, and mood from the perspective of general cognitive strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Groningen Expressions of Epistemic Modality in Mainland
    University of Groningen Expressions of epistemic modality in Mainland Scandinavian Beijering, Karin IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2012 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Beijering, K. (2012). Expressions of epistemic modality in Mainland Scandinavian Groningen: s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 11-02-2018 Expressions of epistemic modality in Mainland Scandinavian A study into the lexicalization-grammaticalization-pragmaticalization interface KARIN BEIJERING The research reported on in this thesis has been carried out under the auspices of the Netherlands National Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT – Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap) and the Center for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG) of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Groningen. Publication of this dissertation was financially supported by the University of Groningen.
    [Show full text]
  • Corpus Study of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Diglossic Speech in Cairene Arabic
    CORPUS STUDY OF TENSE, ASPECT, AND MODALITY IN DIGLOSSIC SPEECH IN CAIRENE ARABIC BY OLA AHMED MOSHREF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2012 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Elabbas Benmamoun, Chair Professor Eyamba Bokamba Professor Rakesh M. Bhatt Assistant Professor Marina Terkourafi ABSTRACT Morpho-syntactic features of Modern Standard Arabic mix intricately with those of Egyptian Colloquial Arabic in ordinary speech. I study the lexical, phonological and syntactic features of verb phrase morphemes and constituents in different tenses, aspects, moods. A corpus of over 3000 phrases was collected from religious, political/economic and sports interviews on four Egyptian satellite TV channels. The computational analysis of the data shows that systematic and content morphemes from both varieties of Arabic combine in principled ways. Syntactic considerations play a critical role with regard to the frequency and direction of code-switching between the negative marker, subject, or complement on one hand and the verb on the other. Morph-syntactic constraints regulate different types of discourse but more formal topics may exhibit more mixing between Colloquial aspect or future markers and Standard verbs. ii To the One Arab Dream that will come true inshaa’ Allah! عربية أنا.. أميت دمها خري الدماء.. كما يقول أيب الشاعر العراقي: بدر شاكر السياب Arab I am.. My nation’s blood is the finest.. As my father says Iraqi Poet: Badr Shaker Elsayyab iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I’m sincerely thankful to my advisor Prof. Elabbas Benmamoun, who during the six years of my study at UIUC was always kind, caring and supportive on the personal and academic levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Affirmative and Negated Modality*
    Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics. Vol. XIV (2009) 169-192 AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATED MODALITY* Günter Radden Hamburg 0. INTR O DUCTI O N 0.1. Stating the problem Descriptions of modality in English often give the impression that the behaviour of modal verbs is erratic when they occur with negation. A particularly intriguing case is the behaviour of the modal verb must under negation. In its deontic sense, must is used both in affirmative and negated sentences, expressing obligation (1a) and prohibition (1b), respectively. In its epistemic sense, however, must is only used in affirmative sentences expressing necessity (2a). The modal verb that expresses the corresponding negated epistemic modality, i.e. impossibility, is can’t (2b). (1) a. You must switch off your mobile phone. [obligation] b. You mustn’t switch off your mobile phone. [prohibition] (2) a. Your mobile phone must be switched off. [necessity] b. Your mobile phone can’t be switched off. [impossibility] Explanations that have been offered for the use of epistemic can’t are not very helpful. Palmer (1990: 61) argues that mustn’t is not used for the negation of epistemic necessity because can’t is supplied, and Coates (1983: 20) suggests that can’t is used because mustn’t is unavailable. Both “explanations” beg the question: why should can’t be used to denote negated necessity and why should mustn’t be unavailable? Such questions have apparently not been asked for two interrelated reasons: first, the study of modality and negation has been dominated by logic and, secondly, since the modal verbs apparently do * An earlier version of this paper was published in Władysław Chłopicki, Andrzej Pawelec, and Agnieszka Pokojska (eds.), 2007, Cognition in Language: Volume in Honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska, 224-254.
    [Show full text]
  • Modality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
    Modality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface Anna Papafragou Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. University College London 1998 (LONDON) To my family with love and gratitude Abstract This thesis explores certain aspects of the structure of lexical semantics and its interaction with pragmatic processes of utterance comprehension, using as a case-study a sample of the English modal verbs. Contrary to previous polysemy-based accounts, I propose and defend a unitary semantic account of the English modals, and I give a relevance-theoretic explanation of the construction of their admissible (mainly, root and epistemic) contextual interpretations. Departing from previous accounts of modality, I propose a link between epistemic modality and metarepresentation, and treat the emergence of epistemic modal markers as a result of the development of the human theory of mind. In support of my central contention that the English modals are semantically univocal, I reanalyse a range of arguments employed by previous polysemy-based approaches. These arguments involve the distributional properties of the modals, their relationship to truth-conditional content, the status of so-called speech-act modality, and the historical development of epistemic meanings: it turns out that none of these domains can offer reasons to abandon the univocal semantic analysis of the English modals. Furthermore, I argue that the priority of root over epistemic meanings in language acquisition is predicted by the link between epistemic modality and metarepresentation. Finally, data from a cognitive disorder (autism) are considered in the light of the metarepresentation hypothesis about epistemic modality. The discussion of modality has a number of implications for the concept of polysemy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anaphoric Parallel Between Modality and Tense
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Technical Reports (CIS) Department of Computer & Information Science January 1997 The Anaphoric Parallel Between Modality and Tense Matthew Stone University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports Recommended Citation Matthew Stone, "The Anaphoric Parallel Between Modality and Tense", . January 1997. University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report No. MS-CIS-97-09. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/177 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Anaphoric Parallel Between Modality and Tense Abstract In modal subordination, a modal sentence is interpreted relative to a hypothetical scenario introduced in an earlier sentence. In this paper, I argue that this phenomenon reflects the fact that the interpretation of modals is an ANAPHORIC process, precisely analogous to the anaphoric interpretation of tense. Modal morphemes introduce alternative scenarios as entities into the discourse model; their interpretation depends on evoking scenarios for described, reference and speech points, and relating them to one another. Although this account formalizes anaphoric connections using dynamic semantics, it invokes a novel and direct encoding of scenarios as ordinary, static objects (competing analyses take modal referents to be inherently dynamic objects, unlike the referents of pronouns and tenses). The result is a simpler proposal with
    [Show full text]
  • Modality and Factivity: One Perspective on the Meaning of the English Modal Auxiliaries
    MODALITY AND FACTIVITY: ONE PERSPECTIVE ON THE MEANING OF THE ENGLISH MODAL AUXILIARIES by NICOLA M,BREWER Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD The University of Leeds Department of Linguistics and Phonetics December 1987 ii ABSTRACT This study concentrates on modality as expressed by the set of modal auxiliaries and seeks to establish that these verbs share semantic as well as syntactic properties by identifying a single core meaning which they share. The relationship between modality and factivity is examined with the aim of gaining an insight into the former, more complex concept. When viewed from this perspective, the defining characteristic of all the modal auxiliary verbs in almost all of their uses is found to be nonfactivity. The meanings expressed by this set of verbs are classified according to a framework derived from modal logic consisting of three basic types of modality each of which relates to a different set of laws or principles; the relative factivity associated with the modal auxiliaries is seen to vary with the nature of modality as defined and classified by this framework. Within each of the three types of modality, a semantic scale is identified and modality is described as a gradable concept for which scalar analysis is appropriate, both within and beyond these three scales. Relative factivity is also shown to vary according to the degree of modality expressed by each of the modal verbs. The nature and degree of modality expressed interact with features of the linguistic (and pragmatic) context to determine the particular factive or a contrafactive interpretation conveyed by a given modal auxiliary token.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grammatical Category of Modality∗
    The grammatical category of modality∗ Valentine Hacquard University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, United States [email protected] Abstract In many languages, the same words are used to express epistemic and root modality. These modals further tend to interact with tense and aspect in systematic ways, based on their interpretation. Is this pattern accidental, or a consequence of grammar or mean- ing? I address this question by: (i) comparing `grammatical' modals to verbs/adjectives that share meanings with modals, but not the same scope constraints; (ii) examining pat- terns of grammaticalization from `lexical' to `grammatical' modality; (iii) comparing scope interactions in languages where modals are 'polysemous' and in those where they are not. 1 Introduction In many languages, the same modal words are used to express a variety of `root' and `epistemic' meanings. English may, for instance, can express deontic or epistemic possibility. About half of the 200+ languages in [vdAA05] have a single form that is used to express both kinds of modality. Yet, in many other languages, modal markers are unambiguously determined for meaning. In the Kratzerian tradition ([Kra81, Kra91, Kra12]), modals are lexically specified only for force (as existential or universal quantifiers over worlds), and the various meanings a `polysemous'1 modal expresses arise from the modal combining with various modal bases and ordering sources. This account, based on the case of polysemous languages, easily extends to non-polysemous ones: a modal can further lexically specify the kind of modal base and ordering source it allows, restricting its meaning to a single epistemic or root meaning. An alternative account based on non-polysemous cases would provide separate lexical entries for the various modals, and extend to polysemous cases by postulating ambiguity.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/40m5f2f1 Author Korotkova, Natalia Publication Date 2016 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California 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.
    [Show full text]