Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-v8zcx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-10T07:36:22.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conditionals and the epistemic scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Noriko Akatsuka
Noriko Akatsuka*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The conceptual domains REALIS and IRREALIS form an epistemic scale representing a speaker's subjective evaluation of the reality of a given situation. This scale accounts for grammatical phenomena such as conditionals, Japanese complementizer choice, and ‘evidential’ in Turkish, Bulgarian, and Macedonian. Conditionals are identifiable not by their syntactic forms, but by speaker attitudes within the IRREALIS division of the scale. Surprise is also an IRREALIS phenomenon, since it takes time for newly-learned information to be assimilated into one's established body of knowledge.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 625 - 639
Copyright
Copyright ÂĐ 1985 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This paper is a product of a long-range research project on ‘subjectivity and grammar’. (I use ‘subjectivity’ in the sense of Benveniste 1971.) Earlier versions were presented at the Symposium of Japanese Discourse Analysis, July 1981, Middlebury College; the Annual Meeting of Teachers of Japanese, April 1982, University of Chicago; and the Workshop on Conditionals, May 1982, Stanford University.

The gestation period of this paper lasted several years. It is therefore impossible to acknowledge all the people who have contributed in some way to its final form. However, I wish to mention four individuals whose moral support came miraculously at different critical stages: Peter Strawson, Haj Ross, Susumu Kuno, and Sandy Thompson. I am also grateful to Robert Epp and William Rogers for their editorial assistance, as well as much helpful criticism.

References

Akatsuka, Noriko. 1983. Conditionals. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 9. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1984. Conditionals are discourse-bound. To appear in Traugott et al. (eds.)Google Scholar
Aronson, Howard. 1967. The grammatical category of the indicative in the contemporary Bulgarian literary language. To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 82–98. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1971. Problems in general linguistics. Miami: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Linguistic universals and language typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conev, B. 1910-11. Opredeleni i neopredeleni formi v bulgarski ezik. GodiÅĄnik na Sofijskija Universitet, Istoriko-filologičeski Fakultet, 7. 1–18.Google Scholar
Darden, Bill J. 1977. On the admirative in Bulgarian. Folia Slavica 1:1.59–63.Google Scholar
Elliott, Dale. 1971. The grammar of emotive and exclamatory sentences in English. Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 1977. The grammatical categories of the Macedonian indicative. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 1981. Admirativity and confirmativity. Zeitschrift fÞr Balkanologie 17:1.12–28.Google Scholar
GivÃģn, Talmy. 1982. Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language 6. 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerrold L. (Syntax and semantics, 3), 45–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Lg. 54. 31–89.Google Scholar
Hinds, John, and Tawa, Wako. 1976. Conditions on conditionals in Japanese. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 4. 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, Kyoko. 1983. The speaker's perspective and hypothesizing: A case study from a Japanese conditional. To appear in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Konstantinov, Aleko. 1973. Baj Ganjo. Sofija: Bulgarski Pisatel.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1976. Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities. Ifs: Conditionals, belief, decision, chance, and time, ed. by Harper, W. L. et al., 129–47. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Li, Charles, and Thompson, Sandra. 1982. Handout from Stanford Workshop on Conditionals, May 21-22.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1981. Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic* (*but were ashamed to ask). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, Noriko Akatsuka. 1978. Another look at no, koto, and to: Epistemology and complementizer choice in Japanese. Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, ed. by Hinds, John & Howard, Irwin, 178–212. Tokyo: Kaitakusya.Google Scholar
McGloin, Naomi H. 1976-77. The speaker's attitude and the conditionals to, tara and ba. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5. 181-91.Google Scholar
Quine, Quine Willard Van. 1950. Methods of logic. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I., and Aksu, Ayhan A. 1982. Tense, aspect, modality, and more in the use of a Turkish particle. Tense-Aspect, ed. by Hopper, Paul J., 185–200. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth, et al. (eds.) ms. On conditionals. To appear, Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Gustav. 1923. The admirative in Bulgarian. Slavonic Review 2. 567–8.Google Scholar