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
    • 3.1 Yata 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
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

Cited by 1 other publications

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 16 september 2023. 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.