The Pragmatic Values of Evidential Sentences

Lewis (1976, 1986b) concentrates on material conditionals, arguing that their semantic values are propositional but that their pragmatic values are given by conditional subjective probabilities. Thus, from the start, the general theses (1) were linked to close linguistic analysis involving both semantic and pragmatic considerations. One comes away from Lewis’s papers with the sense that they could form the cornerstone for a successful (probabilistic) formal pragmatic theory. The present paper investigates the pragmatics of evidential sentences in the general Lewisian terms (1). Now, evidential morphemes are rich and varied in their contributions, they might not form a natural class cross-linguistically (Matthewson et al. 2007:3, Speas 2007), and analyzing even a single morpheme generally proves complex (Davis et al. 2007, Fasola 2007). Thus, we do not, in this short paper, venture a comprehensive analysis. Rather, we focus on the pragmatic strategy that evidentials facilitate. Section 2 discusses the pragmatics of evidentiality. Section 3 carves out a role for probabilities in pragmatic theory, and Section 4 describes our analysis. We close the paper with a discussion of the connections between evidentiality and modality (Section 5) and a brief look at various promising extensions of these ideas (Section 6).

[1]  L. Karttunen Syntax and Semantics of Questions , 1977 .

[2]  H. Rullmann,et al.  Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets , 2008 .

[3]  Peggy Speas,et al.  On the Syntax and Semantics of Evidentials , 2008, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[4]  Anaïd Donabédian,et al.  Towards a semasiological account of evidentials : An enunciative approach of -er in Modern Western Armenian , 2001 .

[5]  Johanna Nichols,et al.  Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology , 1986 .

[6]  S. Levinson Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .

[7]  H. Kamp,et al.  Prototype theory and compositionality , 1995, Cognition.

[8]  E. Garrett Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan , 2001 .

[9]  K. Bach The Myth of Conventional Implicature , 1999 .

[10]  Kai von Fintel,et al.  An Opinionated Guide to Epistemic Modality , 2007 .

[11]  D. Lewis Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities , 1976 .

[12]  C. Barker Clarity and the Grammar of Skepticism , 2009 .

[13]  D. Lewis A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance , 1980 .

[14]  Laurence R. Horn A Natural History of Negation , 1989 .

[15]  Daniel Büring Identity, Modality, and the Candidate Behind the Wall , 1998 .

[16]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  Functional Compositionality and the Interaction of Discourse Constraints , 2007 .

[17]  M. Speas Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features , 2004 .

[18]  Vladimir A. Plungian,et al.  The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space , 2001 .

[19]  J. Rooryck Evidentiality, Part II , 2001 .

[20]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences , 2004 .

[21]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Possible and Must , 1972 .

[22]  Eric McCready,et al.  Evidentiality, modality and probability , 2007 .

[23]  Sally McLendon 5. Evidentials in Eastern Pomo with a comparative survey of the category in other Pomoan languages , 2003 .

[24]  A. Belletti Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol.3 , 2004 .

[25]  Eva-Maria M. Mückstein-Wotschke The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages. Eds., Maurice Gross, Morris Halle, Marcel-Paul Schützenberger , 1978 .

[26]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[27]  Thomas L. Willett A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality , 1988 .

[28]  Christopher Potts The expressive dimension , 2007 .

[29]  Jonathan Ginzburg,et al.  Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives , 2001 .

[30]  Prashant Parikh The use of language , 2001 .

[31]  K. Bach,et al.  Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts , 1983 .

[32]  Janet Barnes Evidentials in the Tuyuca Verb , 1984, International Journal of American Linguistics.

[33]  Lisa Matthewson,et al.  ‘Out of control’ marking as circumstantial modality in St’át’imcets , 2009 .

[34]  Martina Faller Remarks on evidential hierarchies , 2002 .

[35]  Richard C. Jeffrey,et al.  Studies in inductive logic and probability , 1971 .

[36]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Explaining quantity implicatures , 2007, TARK '07.

[37]  Tamar Szabó Gendler,et al.  Oxford Studies in Epistemology , 2005 .