Advertisement

Abstract

In this paper I will examine some data relating to evidential systems in various languages and existing formal semantic analyses of evidential phenomena, with an eye to determining the extent to which available systems are capable of accounting for the full range of facts. Data will be drawn largely from [1] and from the formal semantic works I’ll discuss.

Keywords

Modal Account Semantic Operator Propositional Content Quality Threshold Evidential System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aikhenvald, A.: Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Izvorski, R.: The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In: Lawson, A., Cho, E. (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 7, CLC Publications (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCready, E.: The Dynamics of Particles. PhD thesis, UTexas-Austin (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCready, E., Asher, N.: Modal subordination in Japanese: Dynamics and evidentiality. In: Eilam, A., Scheffler, T., Tauberer, J. (eds.) Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 12.1, pp. 237–249 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faller, M.: Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD thesis, Stanford University (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, C., Potts, C., Speas, P.: The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. In: Gibson, M., Friedman, T. (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 17, CLC Publications (to appear)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCready, E., Ogata, N.: Evidentiality, modality, and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2), 147–206 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roberts, C.: Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 683–721 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masuoka, T., Takubo, Y.: Kisoo Nihongo Bunpoo [Essential Japanese Grammar]. Kuroshio Shuppan, Tokyo (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Sandt, R.: Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Geurts, B.: Presupposition and Pronouns. Elsevier, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Reidel (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vanderveken, D.: Meaning and Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aikhenvald, A.: Evidentiality in typological perspective. In: Aikhenvald, A., Dixon, R. (eds.) Studies in Evidentiality, pp. 1–31. Johns Benjamins, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Haan, F.: Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18, 83–101 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potts, C.: Expressive content as conventional implicature. In: Proceedings of NELS, vol. 33 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Potts, C.: The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)(revised version of 2003 UCSC dissertation)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Girard, J.Y.: Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1–102 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128, 183–228 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric McCready
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishAoyama Gakuin University 

Personalised recommendations