An Alternative Semantic Analysis of the Particle ʃikil in Jordanian Arabic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.23.1.16%20Keywords:
epistemic modality, indirect evidentiality, Jordanian Arabic, possible worlds semantics, truth-conditional semanticsAbstract
This paper revisits the semantics of the marker ʃikil in Jordanian Arabic (henceforth, JA) which has been analyzed as indirect evidential in previous literature (Al-Malahmeh 2013; Jarrah & Alshamari 2017, and others). The paper argues that ʃikil is a propositional-level rather than an illocutionary-level operator and therefore ʃikil is amenable to a modal analysis. The paper also provides evidence that epistemic modality system in JA can be finer-grained in terms of the propositions construed in the modal base as either logical reasoning-based or observable evidence-based. Such intriguing feature has been overlooked in possible world semantics (Kratzer 1991, 2012) but slightly reformed in the modal analysis advocated for ʃikil in this paper where the modal base is argued to construe a presupposition restricting the propositions in the modal base to observable evidence only. Cross-linguistically, the findings of the current paper lend further support to the unfolding literature that asserts the affinity and the heterogeneity of evidentiality and epistemic modality. At the same time, it poses serious challenge to the seminal works in evidentiality such as those of Aikhenvald (2004) and De-Haan (1999, 2004) who claimed that evidentiality is a homogenous category.
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004). Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Al-Malahmeh, Mohammed. (2013). The interaction between indirect evidentiality, epistemic modality and temporality in Jordanian Arabic: The case of deverbal agentives. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Kansas University, Kansas, USA.
Bhatt, Rajesh. (1999). Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, USA.
Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols. (1986). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chierchia, Gennaro and S. McConnell-Ginet. (1990). Meaning and Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Copley, Bridget. (2009). The Semantics of the Future. New York: Routledge.
Davis, Christopher, Christopher Potts, and Margaret Speas. (2007). ‘The pragmatic values of evidential sentences’. In Matthew Gibson and Thomas Freidman (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 17. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Clare Cook, Clare, Jeffrey Muehlbauer, and Rayan Waldie .(2017). ‘(De-)constructing evidentiality’. Lingua, 186: 21-54.
de Haan, Ferdinand. (1999). ‘Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting the boundaries’. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18(1): 83-101.
de Haan, Ferdinand. (2002). ‘The relation between modality and evidentiality’, Linguistische Berichte 9: 201-216.
DeLancey, Scott. (2001). ‘The mirative and evidentiality’. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3): 369-382.
Faller, Martina. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, USA.
Faller, Martina. (2003). ‘The evidential and validational licensing conditions for the Cusco Quechua enclitic-m’. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 16: 7-21.
Faller, Martina. (2007). ‘The ingredients of reciprocity in Cuzco Quechua’. Journal of Semantics, 24(3): 255-288.
von Fintel, Kai and Anthony Gillies. (2007). ‘An opinionated guide to epistemic modality’. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 2: 32-62.
von Fintel, Kai and Sabine Iatridou. (2009) ‘Anatomy of a modal’. In J. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel and S. Yalcin (eds.), New Work on Modality, MITWPL 51. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Garrett, Edward J. (2001). Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Hacquard, Valentine. (2006). Aspects of modality. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA
Ifantidou, Elly. (2001). Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Izvorski, Roumyana. (1997). ‘The present perfect as an epistemic modal’. In A. Lawson and E. Cho (eds.), Proceedings of SALT ,Vol. 7, 222-239. CLC Publications.
Jarrah, Marwan and Murdhy R Alshamari. (2017). ‘The syntax of the evidential particle ʃikil in Jordanian Arabic’. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 29(2): 29-56.
Karttunen, Lauri. (1972). ‘Possible and must’. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 1, 1–20. New York: Academic Press.
Kearns, Kate. (2000). Semantics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kratzer, Angelika. (1981). ‘The notional category of modality’. In H. J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (eds.),Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, Angelika. (1991). ‘Modality’. In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (ed.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 639-650. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kratzer, Angelika. (2012). Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lazard, Gilbert. (1999). ‘Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other’. Linguistic Typology, 3(1): 91-109.
Lee, Jungmee. (2011). Evidentiality and its interaction with tense: evidence from Korean. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, The Ohio State University, USA.
Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis and Hotze Rullmann. (2007). ‘Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets’. The Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7: 201-254.
McCready, Eric and Norry Ogata. (2007). ‘Evidentiality, modality and probability’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(2): 147-206.
McCready, Eric and Nicholas Asher. (2006). ‘Modal subordination in Japanese: Dynamics and evidentiality’. In A. Eilam, T. Scheffler, and J. Tauberer (eds.), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 12(1), 237-249. Penn Linguistics Club: University of Pennsylvania.
Murray, Sarah. (2010). Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, The State University of New Jersey, USA.
Nuyts, Jan. (2001). ‘Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions’. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3): 383-400.
Palmer, Frank. (2001). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Frank. (2006). Mood and Modality. 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, Anna. (2000). Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Papafragou, Anna. (2006).’ Epistemic modality and truth conditions’. Lingua, 116(10): 1688-702.
Peterson, Tyler R. (2010). Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Portner, Paul. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Portner, Paul. (1998). ‘The progressive in modal semantics’. Language, 74: 760-787.
Rooryck, Johan. (2001a). ‘Evidentiality, Part I’. GLOT International, 5: 3-11.
Rooryck, Johan. (2001b). ‘Evidentiality, Part II’. GLOT International, 5: 161-168.
Rullmann, Hotze, Liza Matthewson, and Henry Davis. (2008). ‘Modals as distributive indefinites’. Natural Language Semantics, 16:317-357.
Speas, Peggy. (2008). ‘On the syntax and semantics of evidentials’. Language and Linguistic Compass,2(5): 940-965.
Speas, Peggy. and Carol Tenny. (2003). ‘Configurational properties of point of view roles’. In Anna Sscuillo and Di Maria (eds.), Asymmetry in Grammar, 315-344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Waldie, Rayan, Tyler Peterson, Hotze Rullmann and Scott Mackie. (2009). ‘Evidentials as epistemic modals or speech act operators: Testing the tests’. In Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the America (WSCLA), 123-145.Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.
Willett, Thomas. (1988). ‘A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality’. Studies in Language, 12: 51-97.
