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

1. (Semantics) 

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

    | Zhuo Chen, 2022
2. (Semantics) According to the Entailment-Scalarity Principle (Crnič 2011, 2014), entailment is a stronger form of likelihood—for any two propositions p, q, if p entails q, then p is at least as unlikely as q. | Zhuoye Zhao, 2019

EPENTHESIS

1. (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
2. (Phonology) When a speaker inserts a redundant sound in a sequence of phonemes, that process is known as epenthesis. Redundant in this context means that the additional sound is unnecessary, in that it adds nothing to the information contained in the other sounds. It happens most often when a word of one language is adopted into another language whose rules of phonotactics do not allow a particular sequence of sounds, or when a speaker is speaking a foreign language which is phonotactically different.
    As an example of the first, we can look at examples where English words (which often have clusters of several consonants) are adopted by languages with a much simpler syllable structure: Japanese, for example, with a basic consonant-vowel syllable structure, tends to change the English word biscuit to something like bisuketo.
    Consonant epenthesis is also possible, and in BBC pronunciation it quite frequently happens that in final nasal plus voiceless fricative clusters an epenthetic voiceless plosive is pronounced, so that the word French, phonemically /frenʃ/, is pronounced as [frentʃ]. Such speakers lose the distinction between minimal pairs such as mince /mɪns/ and mints /mɪnts/, pronouncing both words as [mɪnts]. | Peter Roach, 2011

EPICHORIC
(Examples)
○ All forms of the Greek alphabet were originally based on the shared inventory of the 22 symbols of the Phoenician alphabet, with the exception of the letter Samekh, whose Greek counterpart Xi (Ξ) was used only in a sub-group of Greek alphabets, and with the common addition of Upsilon (Υ) for the vowel /u, ū/ (Woodard 2010, Jeffery 1961). The local, so-called epichoric, alphabets differed in many ways: in the use of the consonant symbols Χ, Φ and Ψ in the use of the innovative long vowel letters (Ω and Η), in the absence or presence of Η in its original consonant function (/h/); in the use or non-use of certain archaic letters (Ϝ = /w/, Ϙ = /k/, Ϻ = /s/); and in many details of the individual shapes of each letter. | Wikipedia, 2024
○ Scholars sensibly agreed on the necessity of studies on epigrammatic corpora divided by different dialectal areas, to account for local differences. The first attempt was made by Mickey (1981a), who tried to find out whether "Ionic", "archaic", or "local" features were chosen as the default option. Since neither category prevails, Mickey sought a definition of epigrammatic language in purely negative terms: authors would avoid traits perceived as "too epichoric" (e.g. Attic ττ from inherited *t^(h)y, *k^(h)y), and admitted Ionic and archaic features only when also found in Epic (Mickey 1981b, followed by Kaczko 2009, Passa 2016, Hunter 2022). | Dalia Pratali Maffei, 2023
○ By the third century BCE, however, the development of broad dialect categories (Doric, Ionic, Attic, Aeolic; Morpurgo Davies 2001), statements about proper dialect usage in literature such as that in Callimachus Iambi 13 (influenced by Aristotle's discussion of lexis in the Poetics), and later in the Hellenistic period Tauriscus's inclusion of dialect in one of this three branches (τὸ τριβικόν) of literary criticism (Sextus Empiricus Adv. math. 1.248-249, cf. Asmis 1992) demonstrate a growing recognition of the difference between epichoric and literary dialects, which may have its roots in the late Classical period. | Taylor Coughlan, 2016
○ Hinge (2006) assumes the existence of a common choral Dichtersprache, which arose from the same roots as Homer's, but argues that the epichoric character of our text of Alcman is due to our tradition being based on a transcription of Hellenistic performance, or just on a Spartan text (as proposed by Pavese 1967). | Boris Maslov, 2013
○ The phenomenon of Greek literary dialect (i.e. the curious way in which most genres of Greek literature were associated with a particular dialect which was not necessarily—or even usually—that of the author) is something that all classical scholars are familiar with, affecting as it does all texts that are in verse and other besides. Old Comedy, however, as well as examples of this type of literary dialect, has forms which are clearly meant to be representations of contemporary epichoric dialect. So far as one can tell, it was consistent in this trait (there are no non-Athenians who do not speak in dialect), and was the only genre of literature to make an attempt at this type of linguistic realism. | Stephen Colvin, 1995

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 epistemic indefinite (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

1. (Pragmatics) Speakers of different languages can qualify the reliability of information they express in two ways. First, they can signal its source, e.g., (1) direct perception, (2) hearsay, or (3) inference. Second, they can express their degree of certainty in its truth, e.g., (4) their confidence or doubt.
   1.  I heard John cursing.
   2.  Someone said that John failed the class.
   3.  I therefore conclude that John has failed the class.
   4. a. John must have failed the class.
      b. John may have failed the class.
   
    They can qualify the reliability of information using a variety of devices: lexical, as in examples (1)-(3), intonational, as the slightly rising intonational contour in English sentences expressing surprise (DeLancey 2001), or grammatical, as closed class words and grammatical inflections (on evidential inflections in Tuyuca verbs, see Barnes 1984). In various ways, these devices characterize the origin, nature, and limits of the knowledge expressed by the speaker. Hence, they are all classified as epistemic devices and the information they convey as epistemic information. Depending on their use, I will refer to epistemic devices as speaker-attitude or source-of-information markers. | Stanka A. Fitneva, 2001
2. (Pragmatics) 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.).
   
    | Fang Xu and Rongping Cao, 2023

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) A linguistic category that particularly deals with the interactive dimensions of different discourses. Epistemic modality in broad terms can be defined as "any modal system that indicates the degree of commitment by the speaker to what he says" (Palmer 1995). This degree of commitment on the scale of the truth-in-proposition scale can range from uncertainty, and neutrality to certainty (Nuyts 2000). | 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 January 8, 2025

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x