Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Izvorski1997

[Izv97]: The Present Perfect as an Epistemic Modal — Data [Izv97] #

Empirical data from [Izv97]. 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 with PE #

Languages exhibiting the Perfect of Evidentiality ([Izv97], fn. 1). The paper's body text discusses Bulgarian, Turkish, and Norwegian; footnote 1 lists ~25 languages across 6 families.

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

      Event vs. Must: same force, different base #

      A data point from the Event/must paradigm. The contrast variable is the coarse evidence source; Izvorski's binary direct/indirect cut is CoarseSource.IsIndirect. 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. 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
      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..." — inference from general knowledge.

            Equations
            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
              Instances For

                Presupposition diagnostics ((14)–(16)) #

                Standard presupposition diagnostics applied to the evidential.

                Instances For
                  @[instance_reducible]
                  Equations
                  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
                        Equations
                        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
                          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
                            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
                              Instances For

                                Generalizations #

                                Event requires indirect evidence: felicitous exactly when the evidence basis is CoarseSource.IsIndirect. This captures (8ii).

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  All data points satisfy the indirect-evidence generalization.

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

                                  All diagnostics confirm presupposition status (not implicature).

                                  Bridge: EV operator and modal semantics #

                                  @[reducible, inline]
                                  Equations
                                  Instances For
                                    Equations
                                    Instances For

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

                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      Instances For
                                        theorem Izvorski1997.restricted_base_enlarges_access (f_ev f_must : Modality.Kratzer.ModalBase World) (h : ∀ (w : World), pf_ev w, p f_must w) (w w' : World) (hw' : w' Modality.Kratzer.accessibleWorlds f_must w) :

                                        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).