Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 285–312 | Cite as

Evidential scalar implicatures

Research Article

Abstract

This paper develops an analysis of a scalar implicature that is induced by the use of reportative evidentials such as the Cuzco Quechua enclitic = si and the German modal sollen. Reportatives, in addition to specifying the speaker’s source of information for a statement as a report by someone else, also usually convey that the speaker does not have direct evidence for the proposition expressed. While this type of implicature can be calculated using the same kind of Gricean reasoning that underlies other scalar implicatures, it requires two departures from standard assumptions. First, evidential scalar implicatures differ from the more familiar scalar implicatures in that they do not turn on the notion of informativeness but on the notion of evidential strength. Second, the implicature arises on the illocutionary level of meaning. It is argued that a version of Grice’s maxim of quantity in terms of illocutionary strength can account for this evidential scalar implicature as well as for the more typical scalar implicatures. The account developed also proposes some revisions to the taxonomy of speech acts and suggests that the sincerity conditions of assertive speech acts contain an evidential sincerity condition in addition to the belief condition standardly assumed.

Keywords

Evidentials Scalar implicatures Informativeness Speech acts Illocutionary strength Epistemic step 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atlas J. D. (2005) Logic, meaning, and conversation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach, K. (2006). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In B. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning, volume 80 of Studies in language companion series (pp. 21–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Cole P. (1981) Imbabura Quechua. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cusihuaman, A. (2001). Gramática Quechua: Cuzco-Collao (2nd ed.). Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas”.Google Scholar
  5. Dancy J. (1985) An introduction to contemporary epistemology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. de Haan F. (1997) The interaction of modality and negation. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Diewald, G. (1999). Die Modalverben im Deutschen, volume 208 of Germanistische Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  8. Ehrich, V. (2001). Was nicht müssen und nicht können (nicht) bedeuten können: Zum Skopus der Negation bei den Modalverben des Deutschen. In R. Müller & M. Reis (Eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, volume 9 of Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte (pp. 149–176). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
  9. Fabricius-Hansen C., Sæbø K. J. (2004) In a mediative mood: The semantics of the German reportive subjunctive. Natural Language Semantics 12: 213–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faller, M. (2002a). Remarks on evidential hierarchies. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Z. Clark, & L. Casillas (Eds.), The construction of meaning (pp. 89–111). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Faller, M. (2002b). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  12. Faller M. (2004) The deictic core of “non-experienced past” in Cuzco Quechua. Journal of Semantics 21: 45–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faller, M. (2007). The Cusco Quechua Reportative evidential and rhetorical relations. In A. Simpson & P. Austin (Eds.), Endangered languages, volume 14 of Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte (pp. 223–251). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
  14. Faller, M. (2011). A possible worlds semantics for Cuzco Quechua evidentials. In D. Lutz & N. Li (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 20. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Floyd, R. (1997). La estructura categorial de los evidenciales en el Quechua Wanka. Lima: Ministerio de Educación. Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
  16. Fogelin R. J. (1967) Evidence and meaning. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gazdar G. (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Geurts B. (2010) Quantity implicatures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grice P. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Halliday M. A. K. (1970) Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6: 322–361Google Scholar
  21. Harnish R. (1976) Logical form and implicature. In: Bever T., Katz J.J, Langendoen T. (Eds.) An integrated theory of linguistic ability. Crowell, New York, pp 313–392Google Scholar
  22. Hirschberg J. (1991) A theory of scalar implicature. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Horn L. R. (1985) Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61: 121–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horn L. R. (1991) Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 313–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Iatridou, S. (1991). Topics in conditionals. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Itier, C. (1995). El teatro Quechua en el Cuzco. Cuzco and Lima: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas” and Institut Français D’études Andines.Google Scholar
  28. Karttunen L. (1973) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 182–194Google Scholar
  29. Krifka M. (2001) Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krifka, M. (2004). Semantics below and above speech acts. Handout of talk presented at Stanford University.Google Scholar
  31. LaPolla R.J. (2003) A grammar of Qiang, volume 31 of Mouton grammar library. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Levinson S. C. (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Mackenzie J. (1987) I guess. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65: 290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matsumoto Y. (1995) The conversational condition on Horn scales. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 21–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthewson L., Davis H., Rullmann H. (2007) Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 201–254Google Scholar
  36. Mortelmans, T. (2000). On the ‘evidential’ nature of the ‘epistemic’ use of the German modals müssen and sollen. In J. van der Auwera & P. Dendale (Eds.), Modal verbs in Germanic and Romance languages, volume 14 of Belgian Journal of Linguistics (pp. 131–148). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  37. Papafragou A., Li P., Choi Y., Han C. (2007) Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition 103: 253–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterson, T. (2009). Pragmatic blocking in Gitksan evidential expressions. In Proceedings of the 38th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 2, pp. 219–232). Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Pouscoulous, N. (2006). Processing scalar inferences. Doctoral dissertation, EHESS, Paris.Google Scholar
  40. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon and A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics. Colombus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  41. Sadock, J. M. (1998). On testing for conversational implicature. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics—critical concepts (Vol. IV, pp. 315–331). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 362–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schenner, M. (2009). Semantics of evidentials: German reportative modals. In S. Blaho, C. Constantinescu, & B. Le Bruyn (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XVI (pp. 179–198). Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
  44. Searle J. R. (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Searle J. R., Vanderveken D. (1985) Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Siebel M. (2003) Illocutionary acts and attitude expression. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tenny, C., & Speas, P. (2003). Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. M. Di Scuillo (Ed.), Asymmetry in grammar (pp. 315–343). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  48. Traugott E. C. (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 13: 491–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vanderveken D. (1990) Meaning and speech acts, vol. 1. Principles of language use. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanderveken, D. (1997). Formal pragmatics of non literal meaning. In E. Rolf (Ed.), Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft (Vol. 8, pp. 324–341). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  52. von Fintel K., Gillies A. S. (2010) Must stay strong!. Natural Language Semantics 18: 351–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weber, D. J. (1986). Information perspective, profile, and patterns in Quechua. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 137–155). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  54. Wiemer, B. (2010). Hearsay in European languages: Toward an integrative account of grammatical and lexical marking. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages, volume 49 of Empirical approaches to language typology (pp. 59–129). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. Zeevat, H. (2003). The syntax semantics interface of speech act markers. In Proceedings Diabruck, 7th workshop on the semantics and the pragmatics of dialogue, Wallerfangen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts, Languages and CulturesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations