A Multimodal Dynamic Predicate Logic of Japanese Evidentials. Norihiro Ogata Osaka University

Transcription

1 A Multimodal Dynamic Predicate Logic of Japanese Evidentials Norihiro Ogata Osaka University

2 Contents 1. Theories of Evidentials 2. The Evidentials of Japanese 3. A Dynamic Semantics of Evidentials 4. A Multimodal Dynamic Predicate Logic 5. The Application to the Evidentials of Japanese 6. Conclusion

3 Theories of Evidentials (1) Devices used by speakers to mark the source, the reliability of their knowledge, and the possibility of the truth if what they say. (Chafe and Nichols, 1986)

4 Theories of Evidentials (1) Lexical items which qualify the reliability of communicated information and specify the source of evidence on which statements are based, their degree of precision, their probability, and expectations concerning their probability. (Mithun 1986)

5 Theories of Evidentials (2) a type of EPISTEMIC MODALITY where PROPOSITIONS are asserted that are open to challenge by the hearer, and require justification. Evidential constructions express a speaker s strength of commitment to a proposition in terms of the available evidence (rather than in terms of possibility or necessity). Crystal (1991)

6 Theories of Evidentials (2) Epistemic and Evidential systems are the two main types of Propositional modality with epistemic modality speakers express their judgments about the factual status of the proposition, whereas with evidential modality they indicate the evidence they have for its factual status. Palmer(2001)

7 Theories of Evidentials (2) EVIDENTIALITY proper is understood as stating the existence of a source of evidence for some information; this includes also specifying what type of evidence there is. Aikhenvald (2003)

8 Theories of Evidentials (2) Individual terms in different systems tend to acquire various semantic extensions,, expressing a speaker s (relative) certainty in the veracity of their statement. However, by no means universal. Aikhenvald (2003)

9 Theories of Evidentials (2) Function of evidentials is to indicate how one has learnt about something, and how to categorize the source of knowledge. evidentiality as a cross-linguistically valid category in its own right, with information source as its core meaning. (Aikhenvald 2004)

10 Theories of Evidentials (2) Evidentiality only marginally relates to truth value, reliability of information, speaker s responsibility, and epistemic meaning such notions as `epistemic scale and certainty are tangential to evidentials. (Aikhenvald 2004)

11 Theories of Evidentials (3) The Kratzer-type possible world semantics: Indirect Evidentials are epistemic modal (Izvorski 1997) = { ( ( ) & W, f, g EVp w W u f w v v f w v < u u p f, g ( ( ) & g ( w) )) } f ( w) = {p pow( W ) speaker considers p indirect evidence in w}: modal base g( w) = {p pow( W ) speaker believes p w.r.t. the indirect evidence in w}: ordering source w < v {p g(u) v p} {p g( u) w p} g ( u)

12 Theories of Evidentials (4) Evidentials denote (the procedural meaning which constrains) the higher-level explicatures (the speaker s attitude to the proposition expressed or the speech act being performed) : Relevance-Theoretic theory (IIfantidou 2001, Itani 1996)

13 Theories of Evidentials (5) evidentiality is the grammatical encoding of the speaker s (type of) grounds for making a speech act (the speaker s source for the information) conveyed by the utterance.(faller 2002)

14 Theories of Evidentials (5) The Cuzco Quechua evidentials are illocutionary modifiers which add to or modify the sincerity conditions of the speech act they apply to. The resulting speech act is a. assertion of the proposition p for the Direct, b. assertion of p for the Conjectural, and c. the presentation (an illocutionary act) of p) for the Reportative (Faller 2002)

15 Theories of Evidentials: Summary 1. Evidentials are factored out into two aspects: source modality and certainty modality 2. The intrinsic modality of evidentials is source modality (?) 3. Evidentials denote or add the higherlevel explicatures (?). 4. Evidentials are functions which affects sincerity conditions of speech acts (?).

16 The Evidentials in Japanese (1) Two hearsay forms (soo-da and tte ),. (Aoki 1986) 1. Ame ga hutte iru soo da. rain SUBJ falling be `They say it is raining. 2. Ame ga hutte iru tte. rain SUBJ falling be `They say it is raining.

17 The Evidentials in Japanese (1) Three inferential forms: yoo-da is used when the speaker has some `visible, tangible or audible evidence collected through his own senses to make an inference (Aoki 1986) 1. omae no yoosu o mireba you GEN behavior OBJ see-cond doomo ku ni site inai yoo da at all trouble TO making be-neg `As I watch you, I get the feeling that you are not at all bothered (by )

18 The Evidentials in Japanese (1) rasi-i is used `when the evidence is circumstantial or gathered through sources other than one s own senses (Aoki 1986) 1. Kono kusuri wa yoku kiku yoo-da this medicine TOP well work `I infer from my own experience that this medicine works well. 2. Kono kusuri wa yoku kiku rasi-i this medicine TOP well work `I infer from what I heard that this medicine works well

19 The Evidentials in Japanese (1) 1. Ame ga huru yoo-da rain SUBJ fall `It seems that it is going to rain (for example, observing increasingly dark skies). 2. Ame ga huru rasi-i rain SUBJ fall `It seems that it is going to rain (for example, overhearing talking about rain)

20 The Evidentials in Japanese (1) soo-da2 is used to talk about events which are imminent and when the speaker believes in what he is making an inference about. `not express inference about what occurred in the past (Aoki 1986) 1. Ame ga huri- soo-da rain SUBJ to-fall `It looks like it is going to rain (any minute)

21 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Indicational modalities (Moriyama et al. 2000) such as yoo-da, rasi-i, mitai-da, (infinitive)-soo-da2 are non-hearsay evidentials.

22 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Inferential (Moriyama et al. 2000) Chika ni ita node, kare wa underground LOC was because he TOP 1. tasukatta yoo-da/mitai-da/rasi-i survived `Because he was in underground, it seems that he could survive. 2. tasukari- soo-da to survive `Because he was in underground, it seems that he will survive.

23 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Modifiability by adverbs denoting (un)certain Inference or knowledge 1. dooyara (likely) 2. nandaka/ nanka/ yoku siran ga (I don t know why) 3. itsunomanika (before I know) 4. yappari (As I thought) tasukatta yoo-da/mitai-da/rasi-i tasukari- soo-da

24 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Tactile-evidence-based Inferential (touching one of the speaker s own teeth) Koko ga mushiba ni natte here SUBJ decayed-tooth to to-become iru (be) yoo-da iru mitai-da iru #rasi-i i- (to-be) soo-da `It seems that here (likely) is a decayed tooth.

25 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Visual-evidence-based Inferential (peeping through a hole) Nanika something iru (exist) yoo-da iru mitai-da iru #rasi-i i- (to exist) soo-da `It seems that something (likely) exists.

26 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Auditory-evidence-based Inferential (hearing noise in a room) Hune ga ship SUBJ kita (came) yoo-da kita mitai-da kita rasi-i ki- (to come)soo-da `It seems that a ship has (likely) arrived.

27 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Sensory-evidence-based Inferential (having a headache) Kaze wo cold SUBJ hiita (took) yoo-da hiita mitai-da hiita rasi-i hiki- (to take)soo-da `It seems that I have (likely) caught a cold.

28 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Unknown-source-based Inferential Nanka yuku siran ga, kore wa yoku somehow well not-know but this TOP well ureru (sell) yoo-da ureru mitai-da ureru rasi-i ure- soo-da `I don t know why well but it seems that this sells well.

29 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Experienced-event-based Inferential Kinoo mo daremo konakatta node yesterday also anyone not-came because kyoo mo daremo today also anyone konai (not-come) #yoo-da konai?mitai-da konai #rasi-i konasa- soo-da `Because nobody came yesterday, it seems that nobody come today, too.

30 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Report-based Inferential Rinjin no hanashi kara-suru-to neighbor GEN story based-on koko wa daremo here TOP anybody inai (not-exist)?yoo-da inai?mitai-da inai rasi-i inasa- #soo-da `Thinking based on the neighbor s verbal evidence, it seems that nobody lives here.

31 The Evidentials in Japanese (2) Direct-Visual-Evidence-based Mirukarani kono ringo wa as-it-looks this apple TOP oisii (delicious) #yoo-da oisii #mitai-da oisii #rasi-i oisi- soo-da `This apple Iooked tempting.

32 The Evidentials in Japanese (3) Other Evidentials: toyuu (folklore) hearsay tteba, ttara, cchuunen emphatic -(ru) janai(ka) mirative -(ta) janai(ka) mutual-sharedness confirmative ntochau, ntochigau, njanai speculative

33 A Dynamic Semantics of Evidentials denotes Evidentials tests of certainty of changes of models caused by evidence-acquiring acts or tests of certainty.

34 t Multimodal Dynamic Predicate Logic MMDPL The Language of MMDPL x Var, c Con, R Rel, t TERM, ϕ L s SOURCE, α ACT :: = x c ϕ :: = R( t,..., t ) x. ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ [ α] ϕ 1 n 1 2 s s s :: = talk( a) talked generally _ talked see( a) perceive( a) hear( a) think( a) s + s α :: = perceive( a, t) see( a, t) hear( a, t) touch( a, t) hear( a, talk( a, ϕ)) think( a, ϕ) α ; α α + α

35 Probabilistic Generalized Kripke- Moss Model (PGKMM) M = W,,( ),, ; f ( i) D Rs s SOURCE ρ I X N W f ( i) W s f ( i) f ( i) i X i X ( i, u) { i} W f ( i ) : set of possible worlds D(( i, w)) D : set of individuals R ( { i} W ) ( { i} W ) i X ρ( s,( i, w),( i, u)) 1 I( w)( c) D( w); I( w)( R) D( w) D( w) n times

36 0 w touch(b):1.0 talk(a):0.2 PGKMM u talk(a):0.8 v s 1 w touch(b):1.0 talk(a):0.3 u v

37 MMDPL: Semantics of TERM x c M, w, g M, w, g = = g( w)( x) I( w)( c)

38 Semantics of MMDPL: state σ = M, w, c, g : state M : PGKMM w :{ i} W : i N c : CONTEXT g : W ( Var D) : variable assignment c( new) = the largest index of the state N c ( old) = c( new) 1 c( spkr) D( w) : speaker

39 MMDPL: Semantics M, w, c, g R( t,..., t ) M, w, c, g 1 M, w, g M, w, g ( t1,..., tn ) I( w)( R) n M, w, c, g x. ϕ M, w, c, g a M D( w ). 1, w, c, g ( a / x) ϕ M, w, c, g

40 MMDPL: Semantics M, w, c, g ϕ ϕ M, w, c, g M, w, c, g ϕ ϕ M, w, c, g M, w, c, g ϕ M, w, c, g σ. M, w, c, g ϕ σ

41 f ( c1( new)) MMDPL: Semantics M, w, c, g M, w, c, g s ( s, w,( c ( new), u)) = 1& u W ρ ϕ 1 u W f ( c1( old )) ρ π ( s,( c ( old), w),( c ( old), u)) < 1& u W : R ( w,( c ( new), u)). f ( c1( new)) s 1 σ. M,( c ( new), u), c, g 1 ϕ σ

42 0 w hear(b):1.0 PGKMM t s talk(a):0.8 talk(a):0.2 p touch ( b) v ( ) touch(b):0.2 touch(b):0.5 q,p p touch b p q,p 1 w touch(b):0.3 u touch(b):0.5 s talk(a):0.8 talk(a):0.2 touch(b):0.2 v p q,p touch( b) p q,p talk ( a) q

43 MMDPL: Semantics M, w, c, g M, w, c, g ( s, w,( c ( new), u)) = 1& u W f ( c1( new)) ρ s ϕ u W : R ( w,( c ( new), u)). f ( c1( new)) s 1 1 σ. M,( c ( new), u), c, g 1 ϕ σ

44 0 w hear(b):1.0 PGKMM t s talk(a):0.8 talk(a):0.2 p touch ( b) v ( ) touch(b):0.2 touch(b):0.5 q,p p touch b p q,p 1 w touch(b):0.3 u touch(b):0.5 s talk(a):0.8 talk(a):0.2 touch(b):0.2 v p q,p touch( b) p q,p talk ( a) q

45 M M ' 1 MMDPL: Semantics, w, c, g [ α] ϕ M, w, c, g M, w, c, g ϕ M, w, c, g where ' ' ' = W + W, D ',( R '), ρ ', I ', i X f ( i) f ( c1( new) + 1) s s SOURCE W = ( W { u W ρ( α, w,( c ( new), u)) = 0}) f ( c1( new) + 1) f ( c1( new)) f ( c1( new)) 1 1 { u}: u W & n f ( c1( newest ) + 1) f ( c1( new)) 1 1 D w = D w t M t TERM 1, w1, g1 '( 1) ( 1) { ( )}, s s s 1 f ( c1( new) + 1) ' ' > 0. ρ '( α, w ',( c ( new) + 1, u)) = n, R ' = R ( R { f ( c ( new) + 1)} W ) u W ρ '( α,( c ( new) + 1, π ( w )),( c ( new) + 1, u)) = 1 w = ( c ( new) + 1), π ( w )) c = c ( c ( new) + 1/ new) α

46 0 w 1 w hear(b):1.0 PGKMM t s talk(a):0.8 q,p talk(a):0.2 p touch ( b) v touch ( b) touch(b):0.2 touch(b):0.3 u touch(b):0.5 s q,p talk(a):0.8 talk(a):0.2 touch(b):0.2 touch(b):0.5 v q p q,p p p [ touch( b)] p

47 The Applications of MMDPL to the Japanese Evidentials soo-da1:hearsay yoo-da:tactile-inf.+unknowninf.+sensory-inf.+auditory-inf.+visualinf. rasi-i:report-inf.+unkown-inf.+sensoryinf.+auditory-inf. soo-da2:tactile-inf.+visual+experienceinf.+unknown-inf.+sensory-inf.+visualinf.

48 The Applications of MMDPL to the Japanese Evidentials ϕsoo ϕsoo ϕsoo = 1 talk ( a) + talked + generally _ talked = 2 see( spkr ) = ϕ or 2 touch( spkr ) + hear ( spkr ) + see( spkr ) think ( spkr ) ϕ yoo= ϕrasi i touch( spkr ) + hear ( spkr ) + see( spkr ) + think ( spkr ) think ( spkr ) = ϕ talked + touch( spkr ) + hear ( spkr ) + think ( spkr ) think ( spkr ) ϕ ϕ ϕ

49 Conclusion 1. Summarized Theories of Evidentials. 2. Characterized the Evidentials in Japanese. 3. Proposed the Probabilistic Generalized Kripke-Moss Models. 4. Proposed a Dynamic Semantics of Evidentials based on MMDPL. 5. Applied it to the Evidentials in Japanese.