Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets

248 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials (2014, background): “The main reason for this are claims that have been made for three languages of the Pacific Northwest: – St'´ at'imcets (Matthewson et al. (2007)) – Gitksan (Peterson (2010)) – Nuu-chah-nulth (Waldie et al. (2009)) • On close inspection, however, these authors are actually testing a subtly di↵erent…”
Evidentiality and interrogativity (2017, background): “In general, the ‘higher’ end of the hierarchy represents evidence that is more direct, correlating with greater reliability (although the directness-reliability relationship is not always a given, see, e.g., Matthewson et al., 2007).”
A semantic account of mirative evidentials (2013, background): “…of indirect evidentials as having an epistemic component – the contextually valued set of propositions E – suggests a clear connection with languages whose indirect evidentials behave like epistemic modals (Chafe & Nichols 1986; Izvorski 1997; de Haan 1999; Faller 2006; Matthewson et al. 2007).”