Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 147–206 | Cite as

Evidentiality, modality and probability

Research Article

Abstract

We show in this paper that some expressions indicating source of evidence are part of propositional content and are best analyzed as special kind of epistemic modal. Our evidence comes from the Japanese evidential system. We consider six evidentials in Japanese, showing that they can be embedded in conditionals and under modals and that their properties with respect to modal subordination are similar to those of ordinary modals. We show that these facts are difficult for existing theories of evidentials, which assign evidentials necessarily widest scope, to explain. We then provide an analysis using a logical system designed to account for evidential reasoning; this logic is the first developed system of probabilistic dynamic predicate logic. This analysis is shown to account for the data we provide that is problematic for other theories.

Keywords

Evidentials Japanese Dynamic semantics Modal subordination Probability Anaphora Speech acts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. (2003). Evidentiality in typological perspective. In A. Aikhenvald & R.Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality (pp. 1–31). Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aikhenvald A.Y., Dixon R.M.W. (2003). Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  4. Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proceedings of SALT XIV.Google Scholar
  5. Aoki, H. (1986). Evidentials in Japanese. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols, (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Ablex.Google Scholar
  6. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beaver, D. (2002). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. No. 16 in Studies in Logic, Language and Information. Stanford, CA: CSLI/FoLLI.Google Scholar
  8. Billingsley P. (1986). Probability and measure (2nd ed). New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  9. Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (1986a). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. No. 20 in Advances in Discourse Processes. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
  10. Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (1986b). Introduction. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols, (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. vii–xi). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  11. Chung, K.-S. (2005). Space in tense: The interaction of tense, aspect, evidentiality and speech act in Korean. PhD. thesis, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  12. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. de Haan F. (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 83–101Google Scholar
  14. Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  15. Faller, M. (to appear). Evidentiality above and below speech acts. Special issue of Functions of Language on Evidentiality.Google Scholar
  16. Frank, A. (1997). Context dependence in modal constructions. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  17. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Garrett, E. (2001). Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  19. Geurts B. (1999). Presupposition and pronouns. Oxford, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  20. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunlogson C. (2003). True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Halmos P.R. (1950). Measure theory. Berlin, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  23. Halpern J.Y. (2003). Reasoning about uncertainty. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Heim I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9, 183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higginbotham, J. (2005). Evidentials: Some preliminary distinctions. Ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  26. Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Izvorski, R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In A. Lawson & E. Cho (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 7. CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Jeffrey, R. (1983). The logic of decision. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht, Reidel, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  30. Kekidze T. (2000). ‘-Shi-soo-da’ no imi bunseki [Classification of the meanings of ‘-shi-soo-da’]. Nihongo Kyooiku, 107, 7–15Google Scholar
  31. Kooi B.P. (2003). Probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12, 381–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of Modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics (pp. 38–74). No. 6 in Research in text theory, Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and event domains. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 29–53). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Masuoka T., Takubo Y. (1989). Kisoo Nihongo Bunpoo [Essential Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo, Kuroshio ShuppanGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthewson, L., Davis, H., & Rullmann, H. (2006). Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. Manuscript, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  36. McCready, E. (2005). The dynamics of particles. PhD thesis, UTexas-Austin.Google Scholar
  37. McCready E. (2006). Semantic classification of evidentials. Manuscript, Aoyama Gakuin UniversityGoogle Scholar
  38. McCready, E., & Asher, N. (2006). Modal subordination in Japanese: Dynamics and evidentiality. In A. Eilam, T. Scheffler, & J. Tauberer (Eds.), Penn working papers in linguistics 12.1 (pp. 237–249).Google Scholar
  39. McCready, E., & Ogata, N. (to appear). Adjectives, comparison and stereotypicality. Natural Language Semantics.Google Scholar
  40. Merin, A. (1997). If all our arguments had to be conclusive, there would be few of them. Arbeitspapiere SFB 340 101, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  41. Mithun, M. (1986). Evidential diachrony in Northern Iroquoian. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 89–112). New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
  42. Moriyama T., Nitta Y., Kudo H. (2000). Modariti [Modality]. Tokyo, Iwanami ShotenGoogle Scholar
  43. Morrill G. (1994). Type-logical grammar. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  44. Nitta, Y. (1989). Gendai nihongo-bun no modariti no taikei to koozoo (the system and structure of modalities in the modern Japanese sentences). In Modality in Japanese (pp. 1–56). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Ogata, N. (2005a). A dynamic semantics of modal subordination. In Proceedings of the International Workshop of Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics 2005. Tokyo: The Japanese Society of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  46. Ogata, N. (2005b). A multimodal dynamic predicate logic of Japanese evidentials. Paper presented at language under uncertainty workshop, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
  47. Palmer F.R. (2001). Mood and modality: Second edition. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Potts, C. (2003). Expressive content as conventional implicature. In Proceedings of NELS 33.Google Scholar
  49. Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press. Revised version of 2003 UCSC dissertation.Google Scholar
  50. Quine W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora and distributivity. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts–Amherst.Google Scholar
  52. Roberts C. (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 683–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlenker P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Takubo, Y. (2005). Two types of modal auxiliaries in Japanese: Two directionalities in inference. Paper presented at Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15.Google Scholar
  55. Teramura, H. (1984). Nihongo no Syntax to Imi (Syntax and Meaning of Japanese), Vol. II. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Evidentiality, modality and probabilityGoogle Scholar
  56. van der Sandt R. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9, 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts. Cambridge University Press. In 2 volumes.Google Scholar
  58. Veltman F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. von Fintel K., Iatridou S. (2003). Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(2): 173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureAoyama Gakuin UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Language and Information ScienceOsaka UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations