ENTAILMENT
(Semantics) The relationship between two sentences where the truth of one (A) requires the truth of the other (B). For example, the sentence (A) The president was assassinated. entails (B) The president is dead.
 Entailment is a concept that refers to a specific kind of relationship between two sentences. More specifically, entailment means that if one sentence is true, then another sentence would also have to be true: the second sentence would be entailed by the first sentence.
 Another way to prove entailment between two sentences is to demonstrate that if the one sentence is false, then the other sentence must also be false. Entailment is closely related to the concept of logical consequence. Within logic, the idea that if A is true, then B must be true too is nothing other than a form of entailment.
 An example of entailment can be found in the following pair of sentences.

1. I will turn 28 this year.
2. I am currently living.

ENTAILMENT-SCALARITY PRINCIPLE
(Semantics) 

The Entailment-Scalarity Principle (L. Crnič, 2011, 2019):
For any propositions p, q, if p → q, then p ≤_likely q.

ENTROPY
(General Science) Measure of a system's energy that is unavailable for work, or of the degree of a system's disorder. | Encyclopædia Britannica, 2023

EPENTHESIS
(Phonology) The phenomenon that a segment is inserted between two other segments within a word. For example, in the Dutch word melk 'milk' a schwa is inserted between [l] and [k], yielding [melək]. | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001

EPIPHENOMENON
(General) A by-product or secondary phenomenon. Thus in accounts of syntax that became standard in the 1960s it is the individual rules that are primary; constructions, as they have usually been conceived, were by implication secondary or epiphenomenal. | Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2014

EPISTEMIC INDEFINITE

1. Signifies an ignorance on the part of the speaker (usually) about the witness of the existential claim (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002, Alonso-Ovalle and Menéndez-Benito 2003, 2010, a.o.). We term this effect as pure ignorance, given that in all reported cases of EIs, the speaker has never known what the witness of the claim is.
    The Bengali EI in (1), in brackets, shows pure ignorance, while the addition of the particle jyano in (2) to the DP containing the EI immediately signals derived ignorance:
   1. Pure ignorance: the speaker doesn't know which boy.
      [Kon
      WH

      ek-ta]
      one-CL

      chele
      boy

      gailo.
      sang

      'Some boy sang.'
   2. Derived ignorance: the speaker knew in the past which boy, but can't recall now.
      [Kon
      WH

      ek-ta]
      one-CL

      chele
      boy

      jyano
      JYANO

      gailo.
      sang

      'Some boy sang.' (closest translation)
    | Diti Bhadra, 2022
2. (Pragmatics) Indefinites in which an ignorance implicature is conventionalized. Examples of epistemic indefinite determiners are German irgendein and Italian un qualche.
    Sentences (1) and (2) make an existential claim, and additionally convey that the speaker does not know who the witness of this claim is. Hence, adding the continuation 'Guess who?' results in oddity. In contrast, the plain indefinite somebody allows for this type of continuation, as illustrated in (3).
   1. German
      Irgendein
      Some

      Student
      student

      hat
      has

      angerufen.
      called.

      # Rat
       Guess

      mal
      PRT

      wer?
      who?

      Conventional meaning:

      Some student called, speaker doesn't know who.
   2. Italian
      Anna
      Anna

      ha
      has

      sposato
      married

      un
      a

      qualche
      some

      dottore.
      doctor.

      # Indovina
       Guess

      chi?
      who?

      Conventional meaning:

      Anna married some doctor, speaker doesn't know who.
   3. English
      Somebody arrived late. Guess who?
    | Maria Aloni and Angelika Port, 2010

EPISTEMIC MARKER
(Semantics) According to Zuczkowski et al. (2021), epistemic stances are conveyed by lexical markers and are further classified into macro-markers and micro-markers, and morphosyntactic markers, pointing to three positions—Knowing / Certain position, Not Knowing Whether and Believing / Uncertain position, and Unknowing / Neither Certain nor Uncertain position—each having two sides, one evidential (source, access) denoting the left of the slash and the other epistemic (commitment), pointing to the right of the slash. The macro-marker is a general label and a hypernym, encompassing all the micro-markers that specify access to information or refer to a particular commitment to the truth of information in the here and now of communication. The morphosyntactic markers refer to syntactic structures communicating speakers' epistemic status.

• Knowing / Certain
  • Macro: I know; I'm certain.
  • Micro: I remember, I hear, I see; No doubt, surely, certainly, of course, without doubt.
  • Morphosyntactic: The plain declarative sentence without lexical markers.
• Not Knowing Whether and Believing / Uncertain
  • Macro: I don't know whether; I believe.
  • Micro: I'm uncertain, I'm not certain, uncertain, possible, probable, supposed, assumed, believed, doubted, suspected, I think, I suppose, I doubt, I guess, in my opinion, according to me, as far as I am concerned.
  • Morphosyntactic: Modal verbs in conditional and subjunctive moods; if clauses; epistemic future.
• Unknowing / Neither Certain nor Uncertain
  • Macro: I don't know.
  • Micro: I don't remember, I don't see, I don't hear, incomprehensible, mysterious, obscure, mystery, secret, ambiguity.
  • Morphosyntactic: "Literal" interrogatives (i.e., excluding rhetorical questions, question tags, etc.).

EPISTEMIC MODALITY

1. (Semantics) Refers to the conveyance of the speaker's attitude toward the factualness of a proposition. Sentences such as John may be in his office or Mary could be at school by now (Palmer 2001) are examples of the expression of epistemic modality. (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994) | Glottopedia, 2009
2. (Semantics) Particularly deals with the interactive dimensions of various discourses. Epistemic modality in broad terms can be defined as any modal system that indicates the degree of assurance of what a speaker says. | Ayesha Bashir, Irfan Ullah, and Liaqat Iqbal, 2023
3. (Semantics) Expressions of epistemic modality mark the necessity/possibility of an underlying proposition, traditionally called the prejacent, relative to some body of evidence / knowledge. The stock examples use the English modal auxiliary verbs must and might:
   1. a. There must have been a power outage overnight.
      b. There might have been a power outage overnight.
    Other relevant expressions include further modal auxiliaries such as may, ought, should, can, could, have to, needn't and adverbial expressions such as possibly, probably, certainly, apparently, supposedly, allegedly. Many of these expressions do not unambiguously express epistemic modality. | Kai von Fintel and Anthony S. Gillies, 2007

EPISTEMIC WEAKENING
(Semantics) The creation, by an epistemic agent i, of a non-veridical epistemic space.

1. Veridical and non-veridical epistemic space (Giannakidou 1998, 1999)
   a. An epistemic space (a set of worlds) W relevant to an epistemic agent i is veridical with respect to a proposition p just in case all worlds in W are p-worlds. (Homogeneity).
   b. If there is at least one world in W that is a ¬p world, W is nonveridical. (Non-homogenous space).

EPISTOLARY FORM, ANCIENT GREEK
(Epistolography) The ancient Greek letter had three highly identifiable sections: the opening, the body, and the closing (Aune 1987). The formula for the opening is most commonly: A— to B— χαίρειν, "A" representing the writer of the letter, and "B", the addressee (Exler 1976). "A," appears in the nominative case, and "B" in the dative (Aune 1987). Several different forms occur, the most common being: to B— from A—, without χαίρειν (Exler 1976). In this formula, "B" is in the dative and "A" in the genitive (Aune 1987). The first formula appears mostly in familiar letters, business letters, and official letters, while the second is found in petitions, complaints, and applications (Exler 1976).
 The formula for the closing consists of either ἔρρωσο, ἔρρωσθε, or some modification, εὐτύχει or διεὐτύχει, or, the omission of the final greeting altogether (Exler 1976). In general, familiar letters use some form of ἔρρωσο; petitions and formal complaints use either εὐτύχει or διεὐτύχει; business letters omit the final salutation; and official letters are mixed between using ἔρρωσο or omitting the final greeting (Exler 1976). The combinations of the opening and closing formulas within the various letters are diverse and also help to reveal function and date (Exler 1976).
 As for the body of the letter, three different phrases are used in the opening of the body: the ἐρρ'σθαι wish, the ὑγιαίνειν wish, and the ἀσπάσασθαι wish (Exler 1976). These phrases could either be joined to the openings or begin the body of the letter (Aune 1987). Also, depending upon the primary purpose of the letter to either inform or request something, distinctive informational formulas and request formulas are present (White 1986). The final body phrase, the ἐπιμέλου clause, is closely related to the ἐρρ'σθαι wish, for both appear together in letter writing and disappear about the same time (during the first hundred years of the Christian era) (Exler 1976). The ἀσπάσασθαι phrase began to be employed around the beginning of Augustus' reign and is most frequent in familiar letters (Exler 1976). This phrase originally occurred in place of the ὑγιαίνειν wish at the beginning of the body, yet eventually was placed at the end of the body (Aune 1987). Also appearing, usually in connection with the opening and closing formulas, are prayers of supplication and thanksgiving (White 1981).
 Though this overview of Greek epistolary form has been brief, it has sought to show that the parts of the ancient Greek letter followed definite formulas. These epistolary conventions survived for centuries, being ingrained into the procedures of letter writing. | Tom Campbell, 1994

EPISTOLARY FORMULAE
(Epistolography) The language of private letters is characterized by a large number of so-called epistolary formulae, that is recurrent expressions mainly or exclusively found in letters.
 Epistolary formulae may fulfil various functions and are used throughout letters, though most formulae occur in the opening and closing passages. Some formulae cover intersubjective domains such as greeting and health.

1. Een
   a

   Vryendelijcke
   friendly

   groetenysse
   greeting

   sy
   be

   gescheuen
   written

   aen
   to

   'a friendly greeting be written to'

2. dese
   this

   diend
   serves

   om
   to

   UEd
   you

   te
   to

   Laten
   let

   Weten
   know

   dat
   that

   ik
   I

   Nog
   still

   fris
   fresh

   en
   and

   gesond
   healthy

   zyn
   am

   'this [letter] serves to let you know that I am still fresh and healthy / in good health'

3. Verder
   further

   heb
   have

   ik
   I

   u,
   you

   myn
   my

   hertie
   heart

   lief
   love

   te
   to

   melden,
   inform

   dat
   that

   'furthermore, I must inform you, my dear love, that'
4. Verders
   further

   niets
   nothing

   sonderling
   special

   meer
   more

   te
   to

   melden
   inform

   hebbende
   having

   als
   than

   'furthermore, having / I have nothing special / other to say but / than'

EPP
See EXTENDED PROJECTION PRINCIPLE.

Page Last Modified April 12, 2024

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x