Diverging Evidence in Semantics and Pragmatics

In recent years, research on the nature of linguistic evidence has gained significant attention. One key finding is that linguistic inquiry should not rely solely on a single source of evidence such as introspection, corpus data, or real or thought experiments, but rather combine several types within a single study. However, integrating these diverse forms of evidence presents serious methodological challenges.

Broadly, two main situations can arise. The first is the convergence of evidence, wherein different types of data jointly support a hypothesis. In such cases, the hypothesis becomes more robust than it would be if supported by only one kind of evidence. Over the past decade, the concept of converging evidence in linguistics has been widely explored and discussed. The second, much less studied situation, is the divergence of evidence. Evidence diverges when different sources point towards incompatible hypotheses about a linguistic phenomenon. While convergence strengthens theoretical claims, divergence exposes inconsistencies that require explanation.

Written accessibly, Diverging Evidence in Semantics and Pragmatics focuses on cases in which diverging evidence in semantics and pragmatics leads to inconsistencies, providing insight on how linguistic theories can account for conflicting data and the challenges they pose for empirical research.