The comparability of similar inferential
meanings across languages
Re-thinking synonymy: semantic sameness and similarity in
languages and their description
Helsinki, 2010
Liisa Vilkki
University of Helsinki
•
•
•
Evidentiality: the source of the speaker’s
information (e.g. visual observation, nonvisual observation, inference, report)
Inferentiality: the types of inference (e.g.
inference from observation, inference from
results, inference from general knowledge)
Epistemic modality: the speaker’s attitude to
the factual status of the proposition in terms
of the degrees of certainty (or the reliability
of evidence)
• A genealogically stratified variety sample of the
languages of the world (Haspelmath & al. 2005)
• The survey of descriptive grammars and other
descriptive material
• All the grammatical expressions of epistemic modality
and inferentiality from 110 (130) languages
• Not all the languages of the world have grammatical
forms for epistemic and/or inferential meanings
• Every language of the sample have at least one
grammatical form for epistemic and/or inferential
meanings
• All the methods of data collection have their
merits as well as a variety of disadvantages
• Advantages of using descriptive material: the
possibility of the composition of large samples;
the range of uses that can be considered is not
limited by what is expected in advance; the
possibility of including in the sample ‘dead’ and
endangered languages
• Disadvantages of using descriptive material:
descriptions vary widely in scope, sophistication,
and quality; it is not possible to consider in detail
contextual and stylistic differences between the
compared meanings
• Conventional senses and contextual uses of
expressions in individual languages
• Typologists and other comparative linguists need
standards for comparison (tertium comparationis)
which involve semantic equivalence/similarity and
often formal similarity
• Standards for comparison in this study: semantic
domains (2), semantic subdomains (6), functions (33),
properties (11)
• Some terms, indicating standards for comparison:
comparative concept (Haspelmath 2010), arbitrary
conceptual frameworks (Lazard 2005), analytic
primitive (Cysouw 2007)
• Comparative concepts are created by linguists
for the specific purpose of cross-linguistic
comparison; they are not psychologically real;
they are more or less well-suited for the
purpose of enabling cross-linguistic
comparison; they are not necessarily
universal, but cross-linguistically applicable (cf.
Haspelmath 2010; cf. also Lazard 2005:
arbitrary conceptual frameworks)
• The most important comparative concepts in this
study are functions
• The semantic map model: two functions are
distinguished if there is at least one language that
expresses two meanings (senses/uses) by
different forms (cf. Haspelmath 2003; cf. also
Bybee & al. 1994)
• Most inferential and epistemic functions can be
described by means of semantic parameters,
indicating the type of inference (and other
sources of information) and the degrees of the
speaker’s certainty
The types of inference, included in the parameter ‘sources
of information’:
P, Q: proposition; S: speech time
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The speaker infers P on the basis of prior experience,
general knowledge or intuition (P is not after S)
The speaker infers P from observation of Q (P and Q are
“simultaneous”)
The speaker infers P from observation of the results Q (P is
before Q)
The speaker infers P from observation of Q (P is after Q) /
The speaker infers P on the basis of prior experience,
general knowledge or intuition (P is after S)
The speakers infers P from the report of Q
•
The functions based on the values of the
above parameter:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Inference from memory
Inference from simultaneous observation
Inference from results
Inference about future
Inference from report
• Examples:
Aikhenvald (2003:135): Tariana
(1) Ceci t∫inu-nuku
du-kwisa-sika.
Cecilia dog-TOP.NON.A/S 3sgf-scold-REC.P.INFR
‘Cecilia scolded the dog (I inferred it on the basis of
general knowledge, prior experience, intuition, or
common sense)’.
- Inference from memory
Aikhenvald (2003:140): Tariana
(2) Diha-mha
he-PRES.NONVIS
‘It is him (nonvisual) (we infer it because of
his characteristic gait)’.
- Inference from simultaneous observation
Aikhenvald (2003:135): Tariana
3) Ceci t∫inu-nuku
du-kwisa-nihka
Cecilia dog-TOP.NON.A/S 3sgf-scold- SPEC.INFR.REC.P.
’Cecilia scolded the dog (I infer it on the basis of obvious
evidence)’.
- Inference from results
• Tariana inferentials, illustrated in the examples (1)-(3), are
enclitics which fuse inferential meaning with tense
specification
• Tariana –sika (1) can indicate inference from different kinds of
memorial information; Tsafiki (Dickinson 2000:408)
construction (nominalized verb +a verb class marker) –n-ki is
described as ‘inference from general world knowledge” and it
seems that it also can involve different kinds of memorial
information; Wintu (Schlichter 1986:52-53) suffix -ʔel
foregrounds the speaker’s own previous experience as the
basis for inference
Giridhar (1980:75): Angami
(4) a. puô vór tyò hâ
‘(I infer) he will come’ (on the basis of some perceived
evidence)’.
- Inference about future
b. puô vór té hâ
‘(I infer) he has come’ (on the basis of some perceived
evidence)’.
- Inference from results
• While Angami uses the same auxiliary to indicate two
inferential meanings, Kolyma Yukaghir (Maslova 2003:175176, 2003b:220-227) has a specific “prospective” suffix –možiwhich only indicates inference concerning some situation in
the future. The foundation for inference can be observational
or memorial. In some contexts, –moži- expresses deontic
nuances, more exactly, moral obligation in the future entailed
by some other situation (cf. Maslova 2003:175-176). In
several languages of the sample, inferentials cannot express
‘inference about future’ (e.g. Tariana, Tsafiki)
• The examples, considered above, illustrate how crosslinguistic functions can be used to compare languagespecific meanings that are similar in some relevant respects
• Is the notion of (near) synonyms appropriate for meanings
of different languages that correspond to some of the
proposed functions?
• Divjak (2006:21,31): “Near synonyms are forms that are
characterized by high similarity and low contrastivity in
meaning “; “I propose to reserve the term for lexemes that
show constructional similarity” (corpus-based cognitivelinguistic investigation of near synonymous words)
• Inferential meanings of genetically related languages
and/or languages in contact can be highly similar, even
(near) synonymous
• For example, the inferential suffixes in Eastern Pomo
-(i)ne:, Northern Pomo -na:, and Southern Pomo
-mna resemble each other formally and semantically
(McLendon 2003). The first two languages were spoken
next to each other, and their speakers were neighbors who
intermarried and often also learned each other’s
languages. McLendon concludes that the similarities in
form and meaning could thus be due to diffusion as well as
common origin. (These languages are included in the
extended sample of the study.)
• However, most of the languages in my sample are neither
genetically related nor contact languages
• The question of (near) synonymy concerning these
languages can be discussed from two points of view
• First, the data includes different kinds of grammatical
forms: affixes, auxiliaries, particles, syntactic constructions
– for example, Langacker (2008) assumes that when two
constructions differ syntactically, then they also differ in
meaning (cf. also Divjak 2006 above)
• According to this view, e.g. Angami auxiliary hâ and Kolyma
Yukaghir suffix –moži- cannot be interpreted as (local,
near) synonyms, when they are used to indicate ‘inference
about future’
• Second, differences between semantic networks arguably
affect the degree of similarity between grammatical
inferential meanings
• Assumption: meanings of grammatical expressions can be
described by means of semantic networks (Langacker 2008,
Taylor 2003)
• For example, Tariana enclitic–nihka only expresses meaning
that matches the function ‘inference from results’, while
Hupda (Epps 2005) –sud also expresses ‘inference from
simultaneous observation, ‘inference from memory’ and
some non-inferential meanings, in addition to ‘inference from
results’
• While –nihka has only one meaning, -sud is associated with a
complex semantic network, consisting of meanings that are
conventionalized at least to some degree
• When –nihka is used, inferential structure, consisting of
source (observed results) and inference, based on this source,
immediately emerges
• When –sud is used to specifically indicate ‘inference from
results’, there must be some clues to the speaker’s processing
of evidence for inference in the linguistic context, or the
situation must provide some clues to the relevant
interpretation
• Due to these differences in use, -nihka and –sud can be
considered similar in meaning in some contexts, but hardly
(local, near) synonyms
• Perhaps, for example, English auxiliary must and Finnish
necessive verb täytyy can be considered near synonyms in the
broad sense, although must is more grammaticalized than
täytyy? Both of these forms can correspond to different kinds
of inferential functions. In addition, they indicate ‘certainty’.
It seems that they have highly similar semantic networks.
These assumptions should be studied on the basis of large
corpora.
•
Some examples that can be translated by Finnish täytyy:
(5) She must have been such a pain in the neck to
her Mum and vice versa. (Coates 1983:45)
- Inference from results, certainty
(6) There must be some way to get from New York to San
Francisco for less than $600. (Bybee & al. 1994:180)
- Inference from memory, certainty
(7) His teeth were still chattering but his forehead, when I felt it,
was hot and clammy. He said, “I must have a temperature”.
(Coates 1983:41)
- Inference from simultaneous observation, certainty
References:
Aikhenvald, Alexandra 2003. Evidentiality in Tariana.
In Alexandra Aikhenvald and Robert M.W. Dixon,
eds., Studies in Evidentiality. Typological Studies
in Language 54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company, 131-164.
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca
1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect
and Modality in the Languages of the World.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Coates, Jennifer 1983. The Semantics of the Modal
Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Cysouw, Michael 2007. Building semantic maps: the case of
person marking. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli,
eds., New Challenges in Typology. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 225-248.
Dickinson, Connie 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in
Language 24:379-421.
Divjak, Dagmar 2006. Ways of intending: Delineating and
structuring near-synonyms. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol
Stefanowitsch, eds., Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 19-56.
Epps, Patience 2005. A grammar of Hup. PhD dissertation,
University of Virginia.
Giridhar, Puttushetra P. 1980. Angami Grammar. Central
Institute of Indian Languages. Grammar Series-6. Mysore:
Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Haspelmath, Martin 2003. The geometry of grammatical
meaning: Semantic maps and cross- linguistic comparison.
In Michael Tomasello, ed., The New Psychology of
Language. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to
Language Structure, Vol. 2. Mahwah/New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 211-242.
Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard
Comrie, eds., 2005. World Atlas of Language Structures.
(Book with interactive CD-ROM). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Haspelmath, Martin 2010. Comparative Concepts and Descriptive
Categories in Cross-Linguistic Studies. Language 86 :663-687.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lazard, Gilbert 2005. What are we typologists doing? In Zygmunt
Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges, and David S. Rood, eds., Linguistic
Diversity and Language Theories. Studies in Language Companion
Series 72. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 1-23.
Maslova, Elena 2003. Evidentiality in Yukaghir. In Alexandra Aikhenvald
and Robert M.W. Dixon, eds., Studies in Evidentiality. Typological
Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 219-235.
McLendon, Sally 2003. Evidentials in Eastern Pomo with a comparative
survey. In Alexandra Aikhenvald and Robert M.W. Dixon, eds.,
Studies in Evidentiality. Typological Studies in Language 54.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,
101-129.
Schlichter, Alice 1986. The origins and deictic nature of Wintu
evidentials. In Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, eds.,
Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Advances in
Discourse Processes, Vol. XX. Norwood/New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Corporation, 46-59.
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Vilkki, Liisa (forthcoming). Semantic typology of grammatically
expressed epistemic modality and inferentiality.