Implicit strategies of expressing epistemic modality
Linguistic modality includes necessity and possibility, each with a situational variant (based on objective, factual reality) and an epistemic one (reflecting the speaker’s evaluation of the situation). Epistemic modality indicates that the described information is based on the speaker’s opinion and is either likely to be the case (epistemic possibility) or is almost definitely true (epistemic necessity). The difference between epistemic possibility and necessity is scalar: in the former case the speaker is not certain that the statement is true (though it is likely to be the case, the possibility that it can still turn out to be wrong is also considered), while under the latter scenario being wrong is only a highly marginal possibility.1 Epistemic statements can be interpreted between these two endpoints.
From a typological perspective, this parameter focuses on implicit strategies of epistemic modality.2 Cross-linguistically, epistemic modality can be expressed in different ways such as by modifying the form of the verb via affixation, using periphrastic verbal constructions, or by other means, e.g. adding adjectives, adverbs, particles to the sentence, or, alternatively, clitics that are not associated with the verb but appear in designated positions (e.g. cliticizing onto the first word of the sentence). In neither of these cases is the strategy expected to be limited to expressing epistemic modality only (it may be multi-functional, and also be used to express e.g. future tense or conditional mood).
Types:
EpsMod: Epistemic modality is expressed by changing the form of the verb.3
EpsV: Epistemic modality is expressed using a complex verb construction.4
EpsElse: Epistemic modality is expressed in ways other than using different verb forms or complex verb constructions.
The types must always be illustrated with examples followed by explanatory comments. When a language displays both types, both values can be listed. If one type is dominant, a slash (/) can separate the two values, with the dominant value appearing first; if neither is dominant, they are listed with an ampersand (&) separating the two.
1: An example for epistemic possibility: Mary may already be at home at this time of day; an example for epistemic necessity: Mary must already be at home at this time of day (in the ’I am sure she is at home’ sense).
2: The strategy is explicit in case the speaker uses a lexical element with an overt first person singular marker, e.g. I think…, in my opinion, etc. Explicit strategies also include subordination, with the main clause expressing the opinion of the speaker, e.g. It is possible that…, It is well-known that…. Implicit strategies either include impersonal modifiers, i.e. lexical elements without person and number marking (pl. maybe, probably, definitely etc.), or differ from statements that express no modality in the way they are constructed (morpho)syntactically (see the parameter values).
3: Besides using a special affix (e.g. the participial one) every non-indicative form of the verb belongs here.
4: In these cases an epistemic modal auxiliary is used.