The comparability of similar inferential meanings across languages

Re-thinking synonymy: semantic sameness and similarity in languages and their description

Helsinki, 2010Liisa Vilkki

University of Helsinki

• Evidentiality: the source of the speaker’s information (e.g. visual observation, non-visual 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. The speaker infers P on the basis of prior experience, general knowledge or intuition (P is not after S)

2. The speaker infers P from observation of Q (P and Q are “simultaneous”)

3. The speaker infers P from observation of the results Q (P is before Q)

4. 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)

5. The speakers infers P from the report of Q

• The functions based on the values of the above parameter:

1. Inference from memory2. Inference from simultaneous observation3. Inference from results4. Inference about future 5. 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 2003:175-176, 2003b:220-227) has a specific “prospective” suffix –moži- which 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 cross-linguistic functions can be used to compare language-specific 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 cognitive-linguistic 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.