lat. inferens, Part. Präs. von lat. inferre 'hineintragen'
Bezeichnung für sprachliche Ausdrucksformen, deren Äußerungsbedeutung aus irgendwelchen Prämissen erschlossen werden kann.
In einem weiteren Sinn wird der Terminus Inferential für entsprechende Schlussfolgerungsprozeduren verwendet (z.B. Harnish (1998), Vega Moreno (2007)).
Im engeren Sinn dient der Terminus der Bezeichnung entsprechender grammatischer Formen (morphologischer, syntaktischer; z.B. Oswalt (1961; 1981), der zwischen zwei Typen von Inferentialen im Kashaya (Nordkalifornien) unterscheidet, Circumstantial und Inferential, vgl. hierzu auch de Haan (2001), der hierfür die Termini Inferential I bzw. Inferential II verwendet; vgl. ferner Carlson/Thomas (1979), Schröder (2000), Riggs (2006)). In diesem engeren Sinn kodieren Inferentiale 'inferentielle >Evidentialität'.
de Haan (2001) zeigt am Beispiel unterschiedlicher Sprachen,
"that as a general category the inferential evidential has certain elements in common with both sensory evidentials (such as visual evidentiality) and with evidentials denoting secondhand information (the so-called quotative evidential). Languages can choose how they wish to treat the inferential evidential. Inferentials can consist of both direct and indirect evidence as these are commonly defined and an additional parameter is needed to analyze this evidential category."
Im Deutschen kann inferentielle Evidentialität durch Konstruktionen mit müssen und dürfte ausgedrückt werden, wobei unterschieden werden kann zwischen dem, was Ergebnis notwendiger, vgl. (1), bzw. möglicher, vgl. (2), Schlussfolgerungsprozeduren ist (vgl. Engerer (2005: 77)):
(1) Eva muss Berlin verlassen haben.
(2) Eva dürfte Berlin verlassen haben.
G. Aygen, Epistemic Modality/Mood as Finiteness and Clausal Dependency Marked with Subject Case and Agreement. CLS 2002/38, 47-62.
E. Bashir, Inferentiality in Kalasha and Khowar. CLS 1988/24, 47-59.
B. J. Birner & G. Ward, Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam 2006.
B. F. Carlson, & J. Thomas, The Nitinaht Inferential. Anthropological Linguistics 1979/21, 317-327.
F. De Haan, The Place of Inference within the Evidential System. IJAL 2001/67, 193-219.
S. DeLancey, Notes on Evidentiality in Hare. International Journal of American Linguistics 1990/56(1), 152-158.
[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7071(199001)56%3A1%3C152%3ANOEIH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E]
V. Engerer, Særnummer om Modalitet. Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning 2005/3(2).
E. Erguvanl-Taylan, The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam 2001.
M. González, Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative. Amsterdam 2004.
R. M. Harnish, Four Lectures on Inferential Pragmatics. [Studies in the Cognitive Sciences, Report No. 13, School of Social Science] UC Irvine/UC 1982.
B. G. Hewitt, The Expression of Inferentiality in Abkhaz. JL 1979/15, 87-92.
R. Izvorski, The Present Perfect as an Epistemic Modal. In: A. Lawson & E. Cho (Hg.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistics Theory VII [Stanford Univ., April 21-23, 1997]. Cornell Univ. 1997.
[http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/evidentialperfect.pdf]
D. Kantar & Y. Aksan, The Functions of Modality Markers in the Construction of Novelistic Hybrids in Turkish. Chronos VI. Univ. Genève 2004.
[http://www.unige.ch/lettres/latl/chronos/kantar.pdf]
C. Koops, Constraints on Inferential Constructions. In: G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Hg.), Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam 2007, 207-224.
R. L. Oswalt, A Kashaya Grammar (Southwestern Pomo). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. California, Berkeley 1961.
– Ders., The Evidential System of Kashaya. In: Chafe/Nichols 1986, 29-45.
J. Peterson, Evidentials, Inferentials and Mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2000/23(2), 13-37.
H. S. Riggs, The Structure of the Japanese Inferential System: A Functional Analysis of Daroo, Rashii, Soo-da, and Yooda. In: J. Davis, R.J. Gorup & N. Stern (Hg.), Advances in Functional Linguistics. Columbia School beyond Its Origins. Amsterdam 2006, 239-262.
C. Schroeder, Between Resultative, Historical and Inferential: Non-finite-mış Forms in Turkish. In: L. Johanson & B. Utas (Hg.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. Berlin 2000, 115-144.
R. Shinzato, Where Do Temporality, Evidentiality, and Epistemicity Meet? A Comparison of Old Japanese -ki and -keri with Turkish -di and -mış. Gengo Kenkyuï 1991/99, 25-57.
D. Slobin & A. Aksu, Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential. In: P. Hopper (Hg.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam 1982, 185-200.
P. Stekeler-Weithofer (Hg.), The Pragmatics of Making it Explicit. On Robert B. Brandom. Special Issue of Pragmatics & Cognition 2005/13(1).
R. Van de Velde, Prolegomena to Inferential Discourse Processing. Amsterdam 1984.
B. Wiemer, Pragmatical Inferences at the Threshold to Grammaticalization - The Case of Lithuanian Predicative Participles and Their Functions. Linguistica Baltica 1998/7, 229-243.
R. E. Vega Moreno, Inferential Routes and Pragmatic Routines. In: dies., Creativity and Convention. The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative speech. Amsterdam 2007, Kapitel 4.1.
F. Yavaş, On the Meaning of Tense and Aspect Markers in Turkish. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. Kansas 1980.