{"title":"Dependencies between adverbs and sentence-final particles: A case of confirmative and non-confirmative modals in Cantonese","authors":"Peppina Po-lun Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study examines the evidentiality and epistemic modality of the Cantonese adverb <em>mai6</em>, the sentence-final particle (SFP) <em>lo1</em>, and the <em>mai6</em>…<em>lo1</em> construction. I argue that <em>mai6</em> functions as an inferential evidential, while <em>lo1</em> expresses the speaker’s epistemic attitude. Their co-occurrence in the <em>mai6…lo1</em> construction highlights the overlap between epistemic modality and evidentiality, with epistemic modality being stronger and evidentiality weak. This pairing represents two type-matching modals with varying strengths. The unacceptability of <em>mai6</em> occurring independently suggests that the distinction between confirmation and non-confirmation is crucial in determining the distribution of evidential adverbs and epistemic modals. To avoid double realisation of a single modality, confirmative modal SFPs act as strength manipulators, enhancing modal strength of their non-confirmative counterparts. The force of the non-confirmative type is then converted from weak to strong confirmation. Finally, confirmative SFPs vary in their levels of confirmation: strong confirmative SFPs can occur with non-confirmative morphemes or independently, while weak ones can only occur independently.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47955,"journal":{"name":"Lingua","volume":"312 ","pages":"Article 103830"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lingua","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438412400161X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study examines the evidentiality and epistemic modality of the Cantonese adverb mai6, the sentence-final particle (SFP) lo1, and the mai6…lo1 construction. I argue that mai6 functions as an inferential evidential, while lo1 expresses the speaker’s epistemic attitude. Their co-occurrence in the mai6…lo1 construction highlights the overlap between epistemic modality and evidentiality, with epistemic modality being stronger and evidentiality weak. This pairing represents two type-matching modals with varying strengths. The unacceptability of mai6 occurring independently suggests that the distinction between confirmation and non-confirmation is crucial in determining the distribution of evidential adverbs and epistemic modals. To avoid double realisation of a single modality, confirmative modal SFPs act as strength manipulators, enhancing modal strength of their non-confirmative counterparts. The force of the non-confirmative type is then converted from weak to strong confirmation. Finally, confirmative SFPs vary in their levels of confirmation: strong confirmative SFPs can occur with non-confirmative morphemes or independently, while weak ones can only occur independently.
期刊介绍:
Lingua publishes papers of any length, if justified, as well as review articles surveying developments in the various fields of linguistics, and occasional discussions. A considerable number of pages in each issue are devoted to critical book reviews. Lingua also publishes Lingua Franca articles consisting of provocative exchanges expressing strong opinions on central topics in linguistics; The Decade In articles which are educational articles offering the nonspecialist linguist an overview of a given area of study; and Taking up the Gauntlet special issues composed of a set number of papers examining one set of data and exploring whose theory offers the most insight with a minimal set of assumptions and a maximum of arguments.