Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.Izvorski1997

@cite{izvorski-1997}: The Present Perfect as an Epistemic Modal — Data @cite{izvorski-1997} #

Empirical data from @cite{izvorski-1997}. In Bulgarian, Turkish, Norwegian, and other languages, present perfect morphology doubles as an indirect evidential (the "Perfect of Evidentiality" = PE). The paper's central proposal (8):

The indirect evidential Event is an epistemic modal which: (i) has universal quantificational force, (ii) has a presupposition that the evidence for the core proposition is indirect.

The key empirical contrasts establishing (8):

  1. Event vs. must ((10)–(13)): Both are epistemic necessity modals (same □ force), but Event restricts the modal base to indirect evidence only. Must allows any epistemic base. The difference is in the base, not the force.
  2. Presupposition diagnostics ((14)–(16)): The indirect-evidence requirement is a presupposition (not an implicature) — it resists cancellation (14), projects past negation (15), and denial targets the assertion (16).

Languages exhibiting the Perfect of Evidentiality (@cite{izvorski-1997}, fn. 1). The paper's body text discusses Bulgarian, Turkish, and Norwegian; footnote 1 lists ~25 languages across 6 families.

Instances For
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Binary evidence basis: Izvorski's central contrast variable. The paper argues that Event and must have the same quantificational force (□) but differ in whether the modal base is restricted to indirect evidence only.

      Instances For
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          A data point from the Event/must paradigm. The paper's argument (§3, pp. 227–229):

          • (10)–(11): With indirect evidence, both Event and must are felicitous
          • (12)–(13): Event + "I have no evidence" → contradictory; must + "I have no evidence" → acceptable (must doesn't presuppose indirect evidence)
          • Prose (p. 228): With direct evidence (speaker witnessed the event), Event is infelicitous; must is fine
          • evidenceBasis : EvidenceBasis
          • evFelicitous : Bool
          • mustFelicitous : Bool
          • label : String
          Instances For
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For
              Equations
              Instances For

                Indirect evidence context: both Event and must felicitous. Paper (10)–(11): "Knowing how much John likes wine..."

                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Direct evidence context: Event infelicitous, must fine. Paper prose (p. 228): when speaker has direct evidence (witnessed the event), PE is infelicitous but must is acceptable.

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    Standard presupposition diagnostics applied to the evidential.

                    Instances For
                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        A presupposition diagnostic datum.

                        Instances For
                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            (14): Cancellation fails — "Maria apparently kissed Ivan. # I witnessed it." The indirect-evidence requirement cannot be cancelled, so it is a presupposition, not an implicature.

                            Equations
                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                            Instances For

                              (15): Projection under negation — "Apparently, Ivan didn't pass the exam." The indirect-evidence requirement projects past negation: the speaker still has indirect evidence; what's negated is that Ivan passed.

                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For

                                (16): Denial targets assertion — "Ivan passed-PE the exam. That's not true." The denial targets p (Ivan passed), not the evidential content (that the speaker has indirect evidence).

                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                Instances For

                                  All presupposition diagnostic data.

                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                  Instances For

                                    Event requires indirect evidence: felicitous with indirect, infelicitous with direct. This captures (8ii).

                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    Instances For

                                      Must allows both evidence bases — no presupposition on evidence type.

                                      Equations
                                      Instances For

                                        All data points satisfy the indirect-evidence generalization.

                                        All data points satisfy the must-allows-both generalization.

                                        All diagnostics confirm presupposition status (not implicature).

                                        Izvorski's EV operator (formalization of (17)–(19) + (8ii)).

                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For

                                          The izvorski operator can diverge from the bare prejacent: at w0, pOnlyW0 w0 = True, but the necessity claim is False (since w1, w2, w3 are also accessible under universal access and don't satisfy pOnlyW0).