Re: What is "validationality"?

based upon that description, sirs, it sounds like Kif is based (in part) on
those two principles.
(look in www.langmaker.com for Kif)


>From: tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu
>Subject: Re: What is "validationality"?
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:31:52 -0000
>
>Thanks, David.
>
>--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "David J. Peterson" <dedalvs@G...>
>wrote:
> > Tom wrote:
> > <<
> > In the table of contents of Thomas E. Payne's 1997 "Describing
> > Morphosyntax:  a Guide for Field Linguists" under " 9  Other verb
>and
> > verb-phrase operations" we see "9.6  Evidentiality,
>validationality,
> > and mirativity".
> >  >>
> >
> > I'm guessing you only have access to the table of contents, and
> > not the book itself...?
>
>Exactly so.  I have requested the book, but it has not come in yet.
>
> > Because Payne says exactly what validational
> > (or veridical) force is.  Specifically, he cites Weber 1986
>(Information
> > perspective, profile and patterns in Quechua.  In Evidentiality: the
> > Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe and
> > Johanna Nichols, 137-55 New York: Ablex).  He summarizes saying
> > that evidentiality is purely a marker indicating from whence the
> > information came (i.e., the speaker saw it, the speaker heard it,
>the
> > speaker didn't hear it, etc.).
>
> > Validationality, though, indicates how
> > truthful or accurate the speaker believes the information to be--
> > the degree of commitment the speaker is making to the assertion
> > they make.
>
>That's kind of what I guessed it meant.
>
>Epistemology is the philosophical study of how to answer the question
>"How can you be so sure?"
>
>Looks like it divides into evidence -- the "how can ... ?" part --
>and "veridical force" -- the "exactly /how/ sure are you, anyway?"
>part.
>
>But, in that case, what's the difference between validationality and
>what's usually called "epistemic modality"?
>
> > Payne identifies these as concepts, but doesn't assert
> > they, for example, have distinct manifestations in languages.  So
> > in Quechua even if a speaker knows what his mother's grandfather's
> > name is (i.e., he's been told, everyone in the family verifies it,
>he's
> > seen records, etc.), he can't use the direct evidential marker.
> >
> > At this point, he continues talking about evidentiality, and the
> > discussion of validationality ends.  So, I say check out Weber;
> > looks like it's his idea.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Tom H.C. in MI