خلاصه ماشینی:
"Keywords: Shabaki, evidentials, conditionals, negation, anaphora, modal subordination 1 Introduction Language is a social means of communication by which speakers not only transmit information but also seek to define their own attitude toward what they communicate.
Of interest to the present paper are de Haan (1999), Fitneva (2001), Faller (2002), and von Fintel & Gillies (2010) who believe that epistemic modality and evidentiality are two related but distinct grammatical categories.
In the past, various tests for truth-conditionality have been proposed, among them embeddability in the antecedent of conditionals and under factive verbs, challengeability and scope interaction with propositional-level operators like negation (cf.
In this section, I use some tests such as scope interaction with propositional-level operators (negation), embeddability in the antecedent of conditionals and under factive sentences; and challengeability (can the content be directly assented or dissented with?) in an attempt to prove that evidentials are not truth-conditional (i.
3. The abbreviations for the glosses and attributes used in this paper are 1 = First person, 2 = Second person, 3 = Third person, ACC = Accusative, AUX = Auxiliary, CONJ = Conjunction, DAT = Dative, DEF = Definite, Ez(afe) = A morpheme used to express relation, FUT = Future, GEN = Genitive, IMPF = Imperfective, IND = Indefinite, INF = Infinitive, LV = Light verb, LVC = Light verb construction, NEG = Negation, NOM = Nominal, ONO = onomatopoeic, PASS = passive construction, PERF = perfect, PL = Plural, PRST = Present, PST = Past, SG = Singular, VP = Verbal phrase, - morpheme boundary, + fused morpheme."