6. Discussion and conclusion
6.3. Seem and appear differ with respect to evidentiality and epistemic modality
The contrastive analysis confirms that appear is predominantly evidence-based, and that the most frequent correspondences refer to visual evidence (6.3.1.). The findings also show that seem is more epistemic and convey personal judgement and commitment to a greater extent than appear (6.3.2.).
The findings suggest that it might be useful to consider modality and evidentiality as a matter of degrees rather than to operate with a strict distinction between the two – especially with respect to inferential meaning (6.3.3.).
6.3.1. Appear is more evidential than seem
The findings from the contrastive analysis confirm that appear in combination with a to-infinitive clause and a that-clause is more evidential than seem. This is supported by the following results:
- There are more zero correspondences for appear than seem, indicating that the evidence is strong enough for there to be no doubt or uncertainty about the propositional content, and that the modal element can be dropped in translation. See section 5.3.3.
- Appear refers to direct or indirect evidence far more frequently than seem (70 % vs. 44 % of the translation pairs, inferences excluded). See section 5.4.1.
- Appear refers to direct attested visual evidence in more than half the translation pairs (60 %).
In comparison, seem refers to direct attested visual evidence in about a third of sentences (32 %). See section 5.4.1.
- Almost three times as many translation pairs with seem than appear have no manifestation of evidence (9 % vs. 2 %). See section 5.4.1.
- Seem and appear have overlapping pragmatic functions. Both are predominantly used for hedging. However, the hedging is overwhelmingly connected to direct attested visual evidence in translation pairs with appear (68 % of the hedges). See section 5.5.1.
- The functions of appear as a boosted modifier (i.e. strengthening the illocutionary force rather than weakening it), tend to emphasize the reference to evidence. See section 5.5.1.
- The non-congruent correspondences in the form of adverbials refer to visual evidence (tilsynelatende, åpenbart). See Table 1 in section 4.5.
The following findings from the Semantic Mirrors analysis support the claim that appear is more evidential than seem:
- The second most frequent sense partition of appear is fremstå, which in Norwegian is strongly associated with how someone carries themselves, i.e. how they look or are perceived. See section 5.2.5.
- One of the sense partitions of appear (fremstå) has the highest degree of evidentiality of all the sense partitions discovered.
78
- The prototypical meaning of appear include the Norwegian correspondence se ut som, which is clearly evidential. This prototypical meaning is unique to appear. See section 5.2.6.
In other words, there is substantial evidence backing up the claim that appear, in the syntactic constructions with a to-infinitive clause (a catenative) and with a that-clause, could qualify as an evidential. Both analyses in in my study confirm that appear has semantic meaning overwhelmingly pertaining to evidence, especially visual evidence. Even if I adhere to the narrowest definition of evidentiality, which restricts evidentials to members of a grammatical class (see chapter 2.6.2.), it is possible to argue that appear could qualify as an evidential in catenative constructions and
constructions with appear and a that-clause.
6.3.2. Seem is more epistemic than appear
The findings from the contrastive analysis confirms independently that seem in combination with a to-infinitive clause and a that-clause is more epistemic than appear. The hypothesis is supported by the following results:
- Seem is translated with a modal particle, a modal complement or a modal adjunct more frequently than appear. The Norwegian correspondences thus emphasize the epistemic modality of seem. See section 5.3.2.
- Only seem is translated with an explicit experiencer and a verb of cognition e.g. mene. See Table 1 in section 4.5.
- A fair number of the modal adjuncts that are correspondences of seem (but not of appear) have epistemic meaning, e.g. etter alt å dømme, tydeligvis. See Table 1 in section 4.5.
- Hedges that signal indeterminacy and loose expressions (i.e. weak evidence) only occur with seem in my material. See section 5.5.1.
- The function of seem as a boosted modifier (when its function is to strengthen the force or the truth of an utterance) tends to emphasize the personal assessment and epistemic quality of seem. In contrast, appear as a boosted modifier has the opposite effect and tends to emphasize the reference to evidence and thus the evidential meaning and function of appear. See section 5.5.1.
- Seem is used more frequently than appear to signal stance (26 % compared to 9 %). When the speaker is the source of the evidence, e.g. by way of his if her perceptions (direct attested evidence) or his or her logic reasoning (indirect evidence), the stance signals stronger commitment to the propositional content. See Table 4 in section 5.5. and section 5.5.2.
- Seem as an epistemic marker is more frequent in syntactic constructions with seem and a that-clause, than when it is a catenative. See section 5.6.
The following findings from the Semantic Mirrors-Analysis support the claim that seem is more epistemic than appear:
- The second most frequent sense partition of seem is the sense of a more deeply rooted similarity than just looking like something else, but' being like something' or 'feeing like something' (Group 3S). This sense partition has the highest degree of epistemic modality of all the sense groups. See section 5.1.5.
- The prototypical meaning of seem includes the Norwegian correspondence tyde på (best glossed as 'imply') which has epistemic meaning. See section 5.1.6.
79
The findings above thus uphold the established notion that seem is a lexical modal verb with
epistemic assessment and personal evaluation imbued in the semantic meaning, and show that seem in comparison with appear is more epistemic (3.4.1.).
There is also an argument to be made that even though seem as a perception verb is used to relate attested evidence, there is a stronger element of personal evaluation and assessment when we talk about how something feels or is perceived than when we refer to observed evidence. After all, an observation can be verified by others and can be objective, how one feels is entirely subjective.
Consequently, even if seem as a perception verb were to qualify as an evidential, it comes across as more epistemic than appear.
Parallel to the argument that appear could qualify as an evidential, there is evidence to support the claim that seem, in the syntactic construction with a to-infinitive clause (a catenative) and a that-clause, could qualify as a modal. Both analyses in in my study confirm that seem has semantic meaning overwhelmingly pertaining to epistemic modality, and seem as a catenative and in
combination with a that-clause could qualify as a modal, at least if modality is defined as a semantic concept (2.3).
6.3.3. Seem is both epistemic and modal
The findings from both the contrastive analysis and the Semantic Mirrors-analysis show that seem can be either epistemic (with no reference to evidence, only personal judgement of the truth of the proposition) or evidential (evidence is entailed) or it can be both (e.g. in inferences). This is
confirmed by the following findings in the contrastive analysis:
- About a tenth (9 %) of the sentences with seem have the speaker's opinion as source of modality – no evidence is mentioned. In these translation pairs seem conveys epistemic modality. See Table 3 in section 5.4.1.
- In about four out of ten sentences seem refers to direct or indirect evidence (44 %) and is thus evidential. See Table 3 in section 5.4.1.
- In almost half the translation pairs seem is used to signal an inference (45 %). Inferences are both epistemic and evidential: Inferences based on speaker's reasoning make up 25 % of the translation pairs, and inferences in which the speaker makes an assumption or deduction based on some observable evidence make up 20 %. In comparison, 28 % of translation pairs with appear are inferences. See Table 3 in section 5.4.1.
The findings in the Semantic Mirrors-analysis that support the claim that seem is both epistemic and evidential are:
- Sense partitions of seem are found on both ends of the scale measuring degree of evidentiality and epistemic modality, indicating that seem can have a high degree of epistemic modality and a low degree of evidentiality in some contexts and a high degree of evidentiality and low degree of epistemic modality in others. See section 5.4.3.
Even though my approach to evidentiality and epistemic modality is to consider evidentiality and epistemic modality as two separate categories, it is clear from the above that in inferences,
evidentiality and epistemic modality co-exist in inferences (2.6.3): However strong the evidence, the inference signals that a reasoning process has taken place, and vice versa: logical reasoning and personal judgement typically has some kind of evidence as its starting point.
80
In inferences, epistemic modality and evidentiality thus become a matter of degrees. The interesting question is not whether seem is evidential or epistemic, but whether the evidentiality is stronger than the epistemic modality, or the epistemic modality is stronger than the evidentiality. In the contrastive analysis, translation pairs where seem signalled inferences are evenly distributed between being based on reasoning and results, but the balance tips slightly in favour of inferences based on reasoning (25 % of the translation pairs) compared to inferences based on results (20 % of the translation pairs). The numbers indicate that inferences with seem have a higher degree of epistemicity, but not by much.
In short, my study shows that seem can be either evidential, epistemic and it can be both in inferences, in which case seem has a higher degree of epistemic modality than appear.