在這篇論文中，我以一系列新的且被稱為QUASI-DENIALS的句子作為起點，除了探討它們的核心語意外，並添加一種not-at-issue的(counter-)expectation之說話者態度。為了建立知識情態詞中的事證組成，我檢視英文的知識情態詞「can」在QUASI-DENIALS句子中的語境依賴性，且特別著重在推理證據。在上述論述後，我擬定一個廣義的(counter-)expectation理論。接著，我探討相關的議題，將上述的推論應用在一個meaning perspectival的句法理論中。最後，我結論出，連結評估投射句法中的left periphery到inferential consistency、contextualism和隱含論元上，可以導出(counter-)expectation與情態詞之貌似推論限制的理論。

I begin by reporting on a set of novel constructions called QUASI-DENIALS which, in addition to their core semantics, encode a not-at-issue speaker attitude of (counter-)expectation. Building on the evidential component of epistemic modals, I survey the context-dependency of an apparent case of epistemic can in these utterances, with special attention given to inferential evidence. I arrive at a generalized notion of (counter-)expectation which may be profitably extended to other markers of epistemic possibility, as well as a range of attitude verbs encoding speaker expectation. Following, I continue to explore related issues of theoretical and empirical interest, before moving to a discussion of implementing similar insights in a ‘meaning perspectival’ syntax. Taking as a starting point the hypothesis that perspective-encoding arguments may be encoded within the left periphery of the syntax, I present a new proposal for obtaining inferentially-restricted modal claims. I will argue that a harmonic interpretation of high adverbs and lower modals together exhibit a modal concord phenomenon which arises by virtue of perspectival, syntax-CP-layer adverbial projections restricting structurally lower bare modal auxiliaries. I will suggest that a syntactic treatment of this concord is preferential to a normal-worlds pragmatic construal of the modal base in such utterances. This section begins by introducing the project, reviewing some relevant literature, and presenting a critique of the standard picture of can as a root / “circumstantial” modal (rather than having an epistemic flavor). I then bring my own data and tests to bear on the discussion. I conclude that (counter-)expectation and the apparent inferential restriction of modals may both fall out from a theory of inferential consistency, contextualism, and implicit arguments associated with evaluative projections in the left-peripheral syntactic spine.

摘要…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Chapter 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………… 7
Chapter 2. Reasonable Doubt………………………………………………………………………… 12
§2.1 – Bart’s Problems, Quasi-Denials, and the Charge of Epistemic Indefensibility………………… 12
§2.2 – In Defense of Epistemic Indefensibility……………………………………………………….. 13
§2.3 – The Story: Indefensibility and Reasonable Doubt……………………………………………… 14
§2.4 – A Case for ‘Epistemic’ can?……………………………………………………………………… 16
§2.5 – Toward an Analysis…………………………………………………………………………… 19
§2.6 – Discussion: Extensions and Consequences…………………………………………………….. 22
§2.6.1 – Putting the ICP in Context…………………………………………………………………… 22
§2.6.2 – (A Short Note…) On Embeddability………………………………………………………… 24
§2.6.3 – Cross-linguistic Observations: Duals, Graded Strength and Weakness……………………… 25
§2.6.4 – The View from Mandarin Chinese & Extensions to Non-QDs……………………………… 27
§2.6.4.1 – ‘Epistemic Bias is Just Inferential Consistency’…………………………………………… 27
§2.6.4.2 – Additional Puzzles for Mandarin Chinese………………………………………………… 29
§2.7. – Outlook and Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 30
§2.7.1 – Epistemic Defensibility is Just Consistency (in a Body of Knowledge…)……….…………… 30
§2.7.2 – Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………… 32
Chapter 3. An Inquiry into the Common Component(s) Between Expectation and Desire…………. 34
§3.1 – Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 34
§3.2 – Some Essential Questions Framing the Comparative Study of Expectation & Desire………… 34
§3.3 – Core Data……………………………………………………………………………………… 35
§3.4 – Extensions, Discussion and Outlook…………………………………………………………… 37
Chapter 4. Toward the Syntactic Encoding of Perspectival Contingency in Modal Claims………… 38
§4.1 – Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 38
§4.2 – Theoretical Preliminaries: “Evaluator Place” Arguments & Meaning Perspectivalism……… 40
§4.3 – Toward an Implementation of Perspectival Contingency……………………………………… 44
§4.3.1 – Perspective in the Syntax of Evaluative Adverbs…………………………………………… 45
§4.3.1.1 – Perspective & Predicates of Personal Taste………………………………………………… 45
§4.3.1.2 – Perspective & Modals (?)…………………………………………………………………… 46
§4.4 – A Syntactic Representation…………………………………………………………………… 49
§4.5 – Demonstrating the Adverbial Restriction of Different Modal Flavors………………………… 50
§4.6 – Silent Evaluation & The Modal Concord of Perspective-Driven Restriction………………… 52
§4.7 – Discussion & Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 54
Chapter 5. Loose Ends and Concluding Remarks…………………………………………………… 55
References…………………………………………………………………………………………… 59

References

Betz, Lukas. 2019. ‘A Special Type of Extra-Argumentality.’ Manuscript.

Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumyanal Pancheva. 2017. ‘Implicit arguments.’ The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition: 1-35.

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, R.D. and Pagliuca, W., 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world (Vol. 196). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2010. ‘The Cartography of Syntactic Structures.’ In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, edited by B. Heine and H. Narrog, 51-65. OUP.

Coates, Jennifer. 1995. The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English. In Modality in grammar and discourse: 55–66.

Collins, John. 2014. The Nature of Linguistic Variables. Oxford Handbooks Online. OUP.

Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. ‘Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past.’ In B. C. David Beaver, Stefan Kaufmann and L. C. Martinez (Eds.), The Construction of Meaning, pp. 59–88. CSLI Publications.

Czuba, Matthew N. 2019. ‘Reasonable Doubt.’ Manuscript, National Tsing Hua University.

Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 2001. On the Syntactic Form of Epistemic Modality. Manuscript., University of Tübingen.

Weatherson, Brian & Andy Egan. 2011. Introduction: Epistemic Modals and Epistemic Modality. In Egan, A. and Weatherson, B., eds., Epistemic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ettinger, Allyson & Sophia A. Malamud. 2013. Mandarin utterance-final particle ba in the conversational scoreboard. In LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts (Vol. 4: 13–1).

Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Logic, Language, and Meaning. Chicago, Chicago University Press.

Gauker, Christopher. 1987. Conditionals in Context. Erkenntnis, 27:3.

Glass, Lelia. 2016. The negatively biased Mandarin belief verb yiwei. Manuscript.

von Fintel, Kai. 1998. The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals. In Uli Sauerland & Orin Percus (eds.), The interpretive tract, 29–44. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

– 2004. Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout, editors, Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

von Fintel, Kai & Anthony S. Gillies. 2007. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Tamar Szabó Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology: Volume 2, 32–62. Oxford University Press.

– 2008. CIA leaks. The Philosophical Review 117:1, 77–98.

– 2010. Must stay strong. Natural Language Semantics. 18. pp. 351-83.

– 2011. Might made right. In Egan, A. and Weatherson, B., eds., Epistemic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

– 2018. Still going strong. Manuscript, under review.

von Fintel, Kai & Irene Heim. 2007. Intensional Semantics. Online Lecture Notes, MIT.

von Fintel, Kai & Sabine Iatridou. 2002. The meanings of epistemic modality. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung, 7.

– 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry, 34.2, 173–198.

– 2007. Anatomy of a modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38.3, 445–483.

– 2008. How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals. In Time and modality (115–141). Springer, Dordrecht.

– 2009. Morphology, syntax, and semantics of modals. Materials for LSA Institute class, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Hintikka, Jaakko. 1962. Knowledge and Belief. An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Karttunen, Lauri. 1972. Possible and must. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 1, 1–20. New York: Academic Press.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. ‘What must and can must and can mean.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3).

– 1981. ‘The notional category of modality.’ In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter.

– 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives (Vol. 36). Oxford University Press..

– 2013. ‘Modality for the 21st Century’. In S. R. Anderson, J. Moeschler, F. Reboul (eds.): The Language Cognition Interface / L'Interface Language-Cognition. Geneva-Paris (Librairie Droz). 179-199.

Menéndez-Benito, Paula & Keir Moulton. 2018. ‘Reasoning and Evidence: Sources and Direction.’ Ms.

Partee, Barbara. 1989. ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts.’ Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 25: 342–365.

Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

– 2018. Mood (Vol 2). Oxford University Press.

Potts, Christopher. 2015. Presupposition and Implicature. In Shalom Lappin and Chris Fox, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Wiley, 168–203.

Rett, Jessica. 2016. On a shared property of deontic and epistemic modals. In N. Charlow and M. Chrisman, eds., Deontic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rett, Jessica & Sarah Murray. 2013. A semantic account of mirative evidentials. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT): Vol. 23: 453-472.

Schaffer, Jonathan. 2011. ‘Perspective in Taste Claims and Epistemic Modals.’ In Epistemic Modality, edited by Andy Egan, John Hawthorne, and Brian Weatherson, 179–226. Oxford: OUP.

– 2018. ‘Confessions of a schmentencite: towards an explicit semantics.’ Inquiry: 1-31.

Stalnaker, Robert. 2006. Responses. Content and modality: Themes from the philosophy of Robert Stalnaker.

– 2014. Context. Oxford University Press.

Sudo, Yasutada. 2013. Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning: 275-295.

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. ‘Tense Anchoring in Chinese.’ Lingua 118: 675-686.

– 2012. ‘High applicatives are not high enough: A Cartographic Solution.’ Paper presented in FOSS- 6, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.

– 2015. ‘A tale of two peripheries: evidence from Chinese adverbials, light verbs, applicatives and object fronting.’ In Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, ed., The Cartography of Chinese Syntax, 1-32. Oxford/NY: OUP.

– 2017. ‘On Split Affectivity in Chinese.’ Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies.

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan and Ching-Yu Helen Yang. 2017. ‘Mirativity in Mandarin Chinese: The Syntax- Pragmatics Interface.’ Handout from a talk presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL-25), June 25th-27th, Budapest, Hungary.

Yablo, Stephen. 2006. Non-catastrophic presupposition failure. In Content and modality: Themes from the philosophy of Robert Stalnaker, 164–190.

Yang, Barry Chung-Yu., 2015. ‘Locating WH- Intervention effects at CP.’ In Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, ed., The Cartography of Chinese Syntax, 1-32. Oxford/NY: OUP.

Xu, Beibei. 2017. Question Bias and Biased Question Words in Mandarin, German and Bangla. PhD Dissertation, Rutgers.

– 2018. Dedicated bias word nandao as an illocutionary modifier. In Wm. G. Bennett et al., ed. Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 448–457. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.