This chapter addresses the origin, meaning, syntax, and classification of dizque ‘they.say.that’. These questions are framed in the context of ongoing diachronic and synchronic investigations of new evidential markers (complementizer que ‘that’, digamos ‘let’s say’) and dizque variants (que dizque, quesque). Contingent on the dialect, dizque is a reportative and/or quotative, with a higher or lower degree of epistemic extensions, and mirativity. Dizque can be primarily epistemic too. Syntactic distribution varies. Most forms behave as a particle, with variable scope, to include sentences, constituents, and predicates. Contact with Quechua is thought to accelerate grammaticalization in some dialects. The origin of dizque is unresolved. Dizque may be substratum influence from indigenous languages of South America. Because Romance presents similar forms, dizque could be part of a more general genealogical development. Considering its early presence in the seed Peninsular Dialect, borrowing from Basque, or a calque from Latin cannot be dismissed.
This chapter discusses the working of evidentiality in Quechua narrative performance from the central highlands of Peru. In the Quechua narratives analysed, the grammatical marking of source and status of knowledge, and discursive ways of expressing evidence for knowing what is known, are shown to vary strikingly according to performance related factors. On the one hand, narrators base discursively expressed evidence for knowledge, and the veracity and authenticity of the stories they tell, on lived experience. On the other hand, in Huamalíes Quechua the assertion of knowledge and affirmation of validity are grammatically marked by evidential, epistemic modality, and tense suffixes. Taken together, the performative dimensions of discursively expressed evidence, and grammatical choices around evidentiality, constitute the epistemological underpinning of stories about the past in Huamalíes Quechua; both are taken into account in the mixed methods approach to the analysis of Quechua narrative adopted here.
This chapter presents a sketch of the grammatical evidential system and related epistemic meanings in Gitksan, a critically endangered indigenous language of the Tsimshianic language family spoken in the northwest interior of Canada. A number of basic syntactic and semantic tests utilizing presupposition, negation, and dissent are applied that provide a nuanced description of the meanings of the individual evidentials. A specific feature of the Gitksan evidentials which is examined in detail involves how they can be used to express epistemic modality, and how a speaker’s choice of which evidential to use in a particular speech context is conditioned by her evaluation of the information acquired in that context. One of the effects of this choice is the expression of what can be translated as modal force.
Eithne B. Carlin
This chapter investigates the phenomenon of evidentiality in two Cariban languages, showing that the statement of source of information is not only a matter of grammatical expression, rather as a category it permeates the cultures of these Cariban peoples. Trio and Wayana distinguish a witnessed versus non-witnessed evidentiality pattern. Wayana has an additional reportative marker that has developed out of the non-witnessed form. This chapter looks into the use of evidentials in everyday speech as well as in oral traditions and shows how Trio and Wayana storytellers use evidential forms as a perspectivization strategy to position themselves vis-à-vis the source of information contained in the narratives. In addition, this chapter shows how the discourse of shamanic journeying is distinguishable from that of a speaker who has entered into an altered state of consciousness, such as coma, sleep-state and the like.
Evidentials in African languages range from systems that distinguish between firsthand and non-firsthand information to repertoires of evidential markers that express source of information, control over knowledge, reliability of inferred information, etc. Besides more ‘typical’ evidentials, there are also examples where evidential meanings are expressed via spatial deictic markers, discourse markers, and pronominal elements. This contribution provides an overview of evidentiality in a number of African languages and a case study of the pragmatics of these expressions. The chapter’s main argument is that evidential meanings can emerge ad hoc in specific sociolinguistic settings, where a number of factors translate into a need for clarity and unambiguity in phatic communication. To avoid misinterpretations, speakers make use of evidential markers, thereby reacting to social pressure. They also make reference to notions of agency, voice, and control over knowledge. This chapter focuses on individual languages of Nigeria (Jukun, Maaka) and South Sudan (Luwo).
Marie-Odile Junker, Randolph Valentine, and Conor Quinn
This chapter surveys three representative chunks of the Algonquian family: the Cree-Innu-Naskapi continuum, Ojibwe, and Eastern Algonquian. After noting the very productive role of lexical means of expressing perception (the closest Algonquian gets to sensory evidentials), it highlights how some of the Cree-Innu-Naskapi continuum languages show affixal morphology that contrasts (Direct versus) Indirect evidentiality, Inferentiality, and the distinctive ‘dream-witnessed’ Subjective—with the remainder of the family showing essentially subsets of this range of contrasts. At the phrasal-syntactic level, it examines how the use of uninflected particles and quotative verbs pay special attention to encoding the information source. It shows that evidentiality has traditionally been overlooked due to the treatment of relevant phenomena as essentially epistemic.
The Bodic group of Tibeto-Burman languages infamously code a wide range of epistemological categories, including evidentiality (source of knowledge) and perhaps more contentiously mirativity (expectations of knowledge), and egophoricity (access to knowledge). This chapter investigates these interrelated related epistemological categories in a range of Bodic languages, including but not limited to Darma (Himalayish; Uttarkhand, India), Manange (Tamangic; Nepal), Magar and Kham (Magaric; Nepal), Newaric (Nepal), various Tibetic languages, and Kurtöp (East Bodish; Bhutan). Mirativity appears to be widely found throughout the region, followed by egophoricity and evidentiality. In terms of evidentiality itself, Bodic languages commonly encode oral source of knowledge and less commonly encode indirect source of knowledge. Despite the close cognitive relationship between evidentiality, mirativity, and egophoricity, Bodic languages demonstrate that these categories are distinct.
Katarzyna I. Wojtylak
This chapter is the first attempt to explore how evidentiality is expressed in two neighbouring language families spoken in northwest Amazonia, Boran, and Witotoan. The evidentiality systems in Boran and Witotoan languages are not as complex as those found in languages spoken in vicinity of the Vaupés area to the north. Marking of evidentiality is more elaborate in Boran languages, with three choices available in Bora, while evidentiality distinctions in Witotoan languages are less expressive, with only two terms available in Murui. Although evidentiality choices can differ even within a single language family, a reported evidential is present in all Boran and Witotoan languages without exception. In addition to marking evidentiality, all languages show some type of optional marking that is related to expressing speaker’s certainty regarding an assertion.
This chapter investigates evidentiality in Formosan languages. Five Formosan languages—Bunun, Paiwan, Kanakanavu, Saaroa, and Tsou—are discussed. Evidentiality in these languages is a grammatical category in its own right, and not a subcategory of epistemic or some other modality, or of tense-aspect. The system of grammatical evidentials in Formosan languages has a limited number of choices. Formosan languages with grammatical evidentials divide into types depending on how many information sources are assigned a distinct grammatical marking. Except for Tsou with the richest system of grammatical evidentials, other Formosan languages are relatively poor in evidentiality. In Formosan languages with grammatical evidentials, Tsou is the only language that requires information source to be obligatorily marked in grammar. Other Formosan languages optionally use evidentials in order to ensure efficient communication. This chapter is the first typological study of grammatical evidentiality in Formosan languages.
Heiko Narrog and Wenjiang Yang
This chapter provides an overview of the structure, meaning and use of evidential markers in Modern Japanese and a brief summary of evidential markers through Japanese language history. Japanese has inferential evidentials and reportive markers. They are realized as suffixes on a variety of (mainly verbal) predicates, and as grammaticalized nouns. Issues that arise and are discussed in this chapter include the differentiation between markers that are semantically similar, the purported existence of direct evidential uses, the distinction between evidentials (reportives) on the one hand and quotatives on the other, the interaction with other categories of (mainly verbal) predicates such as tense, aspect, and modality, and the use in interrogatives.
This chapter is focused on the formal expression of evidentiality in Nakh-Daghestanian languages (Russia, Caucasus) and on the semantic distinctions available for evidentials. The vast majority of Nakh-Daghestanian languages express evidentiality in one way or another through grammatical means, but there are also many evidential strategies attested. Verbal evidentiality mainly shows up as one meaning of the perfect series and in inferential constructions with light verbs such as ‘find’, ‘stay’, or ‘be, become’. In addition, some languages have evidential enclitics and suffixes. The evidential meanings expressed are mostly indirect evidentiality, including hearsay and inference. The chapter also presents a short overview of related constructions such as conjunct-/disjunct-marking and epistemic modality.
This chapter describes evidentiality as it is expressed within the Nambikwara language family of west central Brazil, a loosely related affiliation of seventeen language communities living close to the Brazil-Bolivia border. This overview limits its scope to the four varieties where evidentiality has been documented (Mamaindê, Lakondê, Sabanê, and a generic variety of Southern Nambikwara). All four of these languages share several traits that could be considered characteristics of Nambikwara evidential systems. These are: a large set of evidentials (between four and eight); sets that include inferred and reported; forms that link evidentials and tense; and the use of ‘multiple perspective’ as a way of referencing the singular or plural nature of the ‘knower’. It is this latter trait that constitutes the most salient feature of evidentiality within the family as a whole, one that deserves further attention.
While most languages spoken on the island of New Guinea lack grammatical evidentiality, attested evidentiality systems are diverse. These range from small systems with only one marked evidentiality category to systems in which five or more categories are marked. Minimal systems mark only reported, only non-firsthand, or only inferred evidentiality; maximal systems mark visual, non-visual sensory, inferred, reasoning, and factual/participatory or reported evidentiality. Most languages with well-developed grammatical evidentiality are found in a region of Papua New Guinea known as the Highlands Evidentiality Area. Several of these are noteworthy for marking timing of the perception event relative to the speech act.
This chapter describes the evidential and related catetgories of Tibetic languages, concentrating on the Lhasa variety. Tibetic languages show an unusual evidential system based on a three-way grammatical distinction among Factual or assumed knowledge, Egophoric or personal knowledge, and Evidential or contingent facts. Evidentiality per se, specifically the distinction between directly and indirectly acquired knowledge, is distinguished only for propositions of the third type. Some Tibetic languages such as Lhasa and Standard Tibetan further subdivide the Egophoric category and distinguish volitional and non-volitional Egophoric forms. All of these categories are matters of presentation, not objective fact; that is, a particular grammatical construction is chosen not in automatic response to an objective situation, but in order to convey a proposition to the addressee in a particular perspective.
Kristine Stenzel and Elsa Gomez-Imbert
This chapter offers a comprehensive overview of evidentiality in the Tukanoan family of northwestern Amazonia. It begins with the organization of Eastern Tukanoan evidential systems, showing their place within a larger ‘clause modality’ paradigm and in the template of finite verbs. It then outlines the semantics of the four-to-five evidential categories typically found in these systems, considers their epistemic and mirative extensions, and discusses the coding of person and tense/aspect distinctions in the varied morphosyntactic realizations of evidentials as bound affixes or analytic constructions. The expression of evidential values in interrogatives, and observations on special cognitive contexts and speakers’ awareness of and attitudes towards evidentiality are then addressed. A final section discusses evidentiality in Western Tukanoan languages and its diachronic development as a defining feature within the Eastern branch.
Elena Skribnik and Petar Kehayov
This chapter gives an overview of Uralic evidential systems: of the type A3 in Finnic, A2 in Mari and Permic, A1 and A2 in Ob-Ugric (with strong mirativization), of B3, C3, and higher types in Samoyedic, i.e. very different in different branches of the Uralic family. Due to this and to similarities in both semantic values and coding with their geographical neighbours, grammatical evidentiality cannot be considered an inherited feature of Uralic languages—but rather appeared due to areal diffusion and independent innovations with different sources, from past tenses to desubordination. Uralic evidentials are not used in commands and tend to be incompatible with non-indicative moods; they are rarely found in negative clauses and questions, in which case they are outside the scope of the negative/interrogative operator; i.e. the content of the clause is negated/questioned, not the information source.
This paper analyses the interactional and pragmatic effects of two evidential enclitics in the Pastaza Quichua language of Amazonian Ecuador. Attention is also given to represented discourse in a variety of genres. The overall goal is a better understanding of the perspectival encoding of experience through evidential enclitics and represented discourse, and the role of these devices in articulating concepts of sociability and politeness principles. A broader aim is to clarify how discourse practices making use of evidentiality and represented discourse may clarify Quichua peoples’ understandings of their relationships with each other and with non-human nature. Finally, this paper points to the need for future work which attempts to disentangle evidentiality from epistemic modality in Pastaza Quichua by suggesting that epistemic modality may be generated from evidentials as an implicature that depends in part on intonation.
This chapter presents the results of research on the reportative in over two dozen Austronesian languages spoken in different parts of the Philippines. It shows a sampling of forms that the reportative takes and discusses its grammar, semantics, pragmatics, discourse functions, and derivations. The last of these is found only in a few languages that allow the process. It also touches on a distinct reportative of the newscasting register. The latter part of the chapter tackles how social changes have hastened diffusion of reportative forms in areas beyond the homeland of their original users. The chapter ends with a summary of the findings.
This chapter deals with various Turkic evidential categories, which typically express the notion of indirectivity. The primary task of indirectivity is not to express an external origin of the addresser’s knowledge of an event, but to indicate that a narrated event is stated in an indirect way, by reference to its reception by a conscious subject. The reception may be realised through hearsay, inference, or perception. Some more elaborate Turkic systems distinguish between reported and non-reported indirectivity. The various evidential notions are realized morphologically by two types of markers. One type consists of post-terminal inflectional markers that sometimes tend to vacillate between evidential and non-evidential readings. The other type consists of copular particles that are more stable markers of evidentiality.