Cover not available
Part of
Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality: Crosslinguistic perspectives
Edited by Dalila Ayoun, Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Studies in Language Companion Series 197] 2018
► pp. 185–212

Chapter 9
Embedding evidence in Tagalog and German

On two types of evidentials

| ILLA-CSIC
We compare two particles with similar meaning contributions from two different languages, German wohl and Tagalog yata, both roughly translatable as ‘I infer’. Based on their context usage, we claim that both are inferential evidentials. Despite their identical meaning, we assume a non-uniform treatment of evidentials, in view of their differing behaviors. By applying well-established tests, we determine the level of meaning they operate on, the propositional level for yata and the illocutionary level for wohl. Our data show that the embeddability test needs modification, allowing for illocutionary operators to be embedded, but only in root-like clauses, as wohl does. Yata, being embeddable in both root and non-root clauses, operates on a propositional level, and is thus a modal evidential.
Keywords: evidentiality, epistemic modality, inferential, (non-)root clauses, Tagalog
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidentiality: Yata and wohl as evidential markers
    • 2.1The notion of evidentiality
    • 2.2 Wohl and yata as evidentials
      • 2.2.1Yata
      • 2.2.2Wohl
      • 2.2.3 Context usage
  • 3.Evidentials: Modals vs SAOs
    • 3.1Yata as a modal evidential
    • 3.2Wohl as a SAO
    • 3.3Embeddability test restrictions
      • 3.3.1 Factive vs non-factive predicates
      • 3.3.2Relative clauses: Restrictive vs non-restrictive
      • 3.3.3Adverbial clauses
    • 3.4Force as licenser for wohl
  • 4.Conclusions and further issues
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.197.09tan
References (94)
References
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth (eds). 2009. Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De De Se. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav & Hacquard, Valentine. 2013. Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics 6(8): 1–59.Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2014. On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Todd Snider, Sarah D‘Antonio & Mia Weigand (eds), 24: 234–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. Second position clitics in Tagalog. The Nature of the Word, Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds), 549–466.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Barbet, Cécile. 2012. Devoir et pouvoir, des marqueurs modaux ou évidentiels? Langue Française 173: 49–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28, 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia & Macaulay, Monica. 2015. Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology 19(2): 201–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chafe, Williams & Nichols, Johanna (eds). 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2005. Space in Tense: The Interaction of Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality and Speech Act in Korean. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
. 2007. Spatial deictic tense and evidentials in Korean. Natural Language Semantics 15: 187–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2008. Die Syntax der Deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizensierung in Haupt-und Nebensätzen. PhD dissertation, Universita Ca’foscari Venezia.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco & Zegrean, Iulia. 2012. Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles. In Main Clause Phenomena. New horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 229–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Christopher, Potts, Christopher & Speas, Margaret. 2007. The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. Proceedings of SALT, Tova Friedman and Masayuki Gibson (eds), 17, 71–88. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, Patrick. 1994. Devoir: Marqueur modal ou évidentiel? Langue Française 102: 24–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Le futur conjectural versus devoir épistémique: Différences de valeur et restrictions d’emploi. Le Français Moderne 69: 1–20.Google Scholar
Dendale, Patrick & Tasmowski, Liliane. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 403–425. Amsterdam: Elvesier.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2017. Engaging questions: Wohl in German Vend-questions. Paper presented at the Non-At-Issue Meaning and Information Structure Workshop. University in Oslo, May 8–10.
Egg, Markus & Mursell, Johannes. 2017. The syntax and semantics of discourse particles. In Discourse Particles. Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 15–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
. 2003. Propositional- and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua. Proceedings of SULA, Jan Anderssen, Paula Menéndez-Benito & Adam Werle (eds), 2, 19–33. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2007. Evidentiality above and below speech acts. Ms. University of Manchester.Google Scholar
. 2011. A possible world semantics for Cuzco Quechua evidentials. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20, Li Nan & David Lutz (eds), 660–683. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
. 2014. Do speech act evidentials embed after all? Paper presented at the Workshop on the Semantics of Embedding and the Syntax of the Left Periphery, LAGB, Oxford, September.
von Fintel, Kai & Gillies, Anthony S. 2010. Must… stay… strong!. Natural Language Semantics 18: 351–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In The Logic of Grammar, Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds), 64–75. Encino CA: Dickenson.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics: 18 91–105.Google Scholar
. 2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 9: 201–216.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
Haumann, Dagmar & Letnes, Ole. 2012. German wohl: An evidential? In Covert Patterns of Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 202–238. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Wai-Man Lam, Zoe, Osa-Gómez, Adriana & Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. How to do things with particles. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Laura Teddiman (ed.), 1–15. Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard. 1988. Lexikon Deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion und Geschichte Deutscher Partikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2005. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 179–209. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of the 7th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, held March 21–23 1997 at Stanford University, Aaron Lawson (ed.), 222–239. <[URL]>
Jacobs, Joachim. 1984. Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte 91: 25–58.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, William Chafe & John Nichols (eds), 3–28. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Themes from Kaplan, Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds), 481–563. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2010. The Morphosyntax of Tagalog Clitics: A Typologically Driven Approach. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
van der Klok, Jozina. 2014. On the use of questionnaires in semantic fieldwork: A case study in modality. Ms, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Korotkova, Natalia. 2016. Heterogeneity and Uniformity in the Evidential Domain. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, Worlds and Contexts, Hans J. Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds), 38–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1991. Modality. Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Dieter Wunderlich & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 639–650. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1999. Beyond ouch and oops . Paper presented at the Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency. Ithaca NY, Cornell University, March 26.
Kroeger, Paul. 1998. Clitics and clause structure in Tagalog. In Pagtanaw: Essays on Language in Honor of Teodoro A. Llamzon, 53–72. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2012. When fieldwork meets theory: Evidence about evidentials. In Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory: Studies of Meaning and Structure, Britta Stolterfoht & Sam Featherston (eds), 85–114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2015. Evidential restrictions on epistemic modals. In Epistemic Indefinites, Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds), 141–160. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, Rullmann, Hotze & Davis, Henry. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 201–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCready, Eric & Ogata, Norry. 2007. Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2): 147–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCready, Eric. 2015a. Evidentiality. Lecture given at the 27th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, August.
. 2015b. Reliability in Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Modicom, Pierre-Yves. 2012. Shared knowledge and epistemic reductionism: Covert semantics of German modal particles. In Covert Patterns of Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 202–238. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah. 2010. Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Modality, William Frawley (ed.), 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2010. Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics- Pragmatics Interface. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2009. Negation in Gapping. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. ¬(A&B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators. In Special issue Ellipsis , Jennifer Spenader & Petra Hendricks (eds). Research on Language and Computation 4(4): 397–423.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2001. Evidentiality, Part I. Glot International 5: 125–133.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis. 2014. Inferential evidentiality with epistemic modality. A pragmatic stance. Paper presented at Chronos 11, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 16–18 June.
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Constraints on clitic order in Tagalog. In Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez, Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), 214–231. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schenner, Mathias & Sode, Frank. 2014. Modal particles in causal clauses. The case of German weil wohl . In Modes of Modality [Studies in Language Companion Series 149], Elisabeth Leiss & Abraham Werner (eds), 291–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scherf, Nathalie. 2017. The syntax of Swedish modal particles. In Discourse Particles. Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 78–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1): 29–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
SEALang Library Tagalog Text Corpus. <[URL]> (10 November 2016).
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2006. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117: 1034–1056. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57], Anna-Maria DiSciullio (ed.), 315–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5): 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tan, Jennifer. 2016. On the modality of Tagalog evidentials. In Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, Hiroki Nomoto, Takuya Miyauchi & Asako Shiohara (eds), 273–287. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith & Matthewson, Lisa. 2015. Empirical evidence in research on meaning. Ms. <[URL]>
Vanderveken, Daniel. 1990. Meaning and Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Waldie, Ryan, Peterson, Tyler, Rullmann, Hotze & Mackie, Scott. 2009. Evidentials as epistemic modals or speech act operators: testing the tests. Paper presented at The 14th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA), Purdue University.
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A crosslinguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, Henk. 2000. Discourse particles as speech act markers. LDV-Forum 17: 74–91.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2004. Zum ‘wohl’: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Monforte, Sergio
2022. Modalitate-markatzaileak: partikula modalak ote dira euskarazko partikula modalak? [Marcadores de modalidad: ¿son realmente las partículas modales del vasco partículas modales?]. Fontes Linguae Vasconum :132 ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.