1932

Abstract

Evidential constructions have two main semantic effects: They contribute information about an individual's source of evidence, and they potentially modify the force of a sentence. In this article, I review the at-issue status of the evidential information, the indexical and anaphoric properties of evidentials, their force-modifying effect, and the connection throughout to epistemic modality. In some languages, evidentials occur as part of the grammatical morphology, but evidential information can be expressed through a variety of constructions across languages. As such, the study of evidentiality highlights the important role of cross-linguistic semantics and the collaboration between language typology and linguistic semantics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012625
2021-01-04
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-011718-012625.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012625&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aikhenvald AY. 2003a. Evidentiality in Tariana. Studies in Evidentiality AY Aikhenvald, RM Dixon 131–64 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald AY. 2003b. A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald AY. 2004. Evidentiality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. AnderBois S. 2014. On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 24) T Snider, S D'Antonio, M Wiegand 234–54 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. AnderBois S. 2017. An illocutionary account of reportative evidentials in imperatives. Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 27) D Burgdorf, J Collard, S Maspong, B Stefánsdóttir 459–79 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhadra D. 2017. Evidentiality and questions: Bangla at the interfaces PhD Thesis, Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bittner M. 2014. Temporality: Universals and Variation Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Davis C, Potts C, Speas M 2007. The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 17) M Gibson, T Friedman 71–88 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. de Haan F. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest J. Linguist. 18:83–101
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Deal AR. 2020. A Theory of Indexical Shift: Meaning, Grammar, and Crosslinguistic Variation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Déchaine RM, Cook C, Muehlbauer J, Waldie R 2017. (De-)constructing evidentiality. Lingua 186–187:21–54
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Faller MT. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua PhD Thesis, Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Faller MT. 2006a. Evidentiality above and below speech acts Work. Pap., Univ. Manchester Manchester, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Faller MT. 2006b. Evidentiality and epistemic modality at the semantics/pragmatics interface Paper presented at the University of Michigan Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics Ann Arbor, MI: Nov. 3–5
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Faller MT. 2011. A possible worlds semantics for Cuzco Quechua evidentials. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 20) N Li, D Lutz 660–83 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Faller MT. 2012. Evidential scalar implicatures. Linguist. Philos. 35:285–312
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Faller MT. 2019. The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives. Semant. Pragmat. 12:8
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Garrett E. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif Los Angeles:
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Izvorski R. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 7) A Lawson 222–39 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Korotkova N. 2016. Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif Los Angeles:
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Krifka M. 2014. Embedding illocutionary acts. Recursion: Complexity in Cognition T Roeper, M Speas 125–55 Cham, Switz: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Krifka M. 2015. Bias in commitment space semantics: declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 25) S D'Antonio, M Moroney, CR Little 328–45 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lasersohn P. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguist. Philos. 28:643–86
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Leman W 1980. Cheyenne Texts: An Introduction to Cheyenne Literature Greeley, CO: Mus. Anthropol., Univ. North. Colo.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Littell P, Matthewson L, Peterson T 2010. On the semantics of conjectural questions. Evidence from Evidentials T Peterson, U Sauerland 89–104 Univ. B.C. Work. Pap. Linguist . Vol. 28 Vancouver, Can: Dep. Linguist., Univ. B.C.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mandelkern M. 2019. What ‘must’ adds. Linguist. Philos. 42:225–66
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Matthewson L. 2015. Evidential restrictions on epistemic modals. Epistemic Indefinites: Exploring Modality Beyond the Verbal Domain L Alonso-Ovalle, P Menéndez-Benito 141–60 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Matthewson L, Rullmann H, Davis H 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: evidence from St'át'imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2007 JV Craenenbroeck 201–54 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  29. McCready E, Ogata N. 2007. Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguist. Philos. 30:147–206
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Murray SE. 2009. A Hamblin semantics for evidentials. Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 19) E Cormany, S Ito, D Lutz 324–41 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Murray SE. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts PhD Thesis, Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Murray SE. 2014. Varieties of update. Semant. Pragmat. 7:2
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Murray SE. 2016. Evidentiality and illocutionary mood in Cheyenne. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 82:487–517
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Murray SE. 2017. The Semantics of Evidentials Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Murray SE, Starr WB. 2018. Force and conversational states. New Work on Speech Acts D Fogal, D Harris, M Moss 202–36 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Murray SE, Starr WB. 2020. The structure of communicative acts. Linguist. Philos. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09289-0
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Papafragou A. 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116:1688–702
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Peterson T. 2010. Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface PhD Thesis, Univ. B.C Vancouver, Can:.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Portner P. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 14) RB Young 235–52 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Portner P. 2006. Comments on Faller's paper Paper presented at the University of Michigan Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics Ann Arbor, MI: Nov. 3–5
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Potts C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ross JR. 1973. Slifting. The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages MGM Halle, MP Schützenberger 133–69 The Hague, Neth: Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Schwager M. 2010. On what has been said in Tagalog: reportative daw. Evidence from Evidentials T Peterson, U Sauerland 221–46 Univ. B.C. Work. Pap. Linguist . Vol. 28 Vancouver, Can: Dep. Linguist., Univ. B.C.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Simons M. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117:1034–56
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Smirnova A. 2013. Evidentiality in Bulgarian: temporality, epistemic modality, and information source. J. Semant. 30:479–532
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Snider T. 2017. At-issueness ≠ anaphoric availability. Proc. Linguist. Soc. Am. 2:39
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Snider T. 2018. Distinguishing at-issueness from anaphoric potential: a case study of appositives. Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) WG Bennett, L Hracs, DR Storoshenko 374–81 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Speas M, Tenny C. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. Asymmetry in Grammar AMD Scuillo 315–44 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Starr WB. 2010. Conditionals, meaning and mood PhD Thesis, Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Stephenson T. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguist. Philos. 30:487–525
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Stone M. 1994. The reference argument of epistemic must. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-1) H Bunt, R Muskens, G Rentier 181–90 Tilburg, Neth: Tilburg Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Tonhauser J. 2012. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on the Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas and SULA-Bar E Bogal-Allbritten 239–54 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tonhauser J, Beaver D, Roberts C, Simons M 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89:66–109
    [Google Scholar]
  54. von Fintel K. 2006. Modality and language. Encyclopedia of Philosophy 10 DM Borchert 20–27 Detroit, MI: Macmillan, 2nd. ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. von Fintel K, Gillies AS 2008. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. Oxford Studies in Epistemology 2 TS Gendler, J Hawthorne 32–62 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. von Fintel K, Gillies AS 2010. Must…stay…strong. ! Nat. Lang. Semant. 18:351–83
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012625
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012625
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error