1
Four types of evidentiality
Kees HengeveldMarize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher
2
Introduction
A hierarchical approach to grammatical categories has proven to be useful in the domain of TMA
Such an approach has not been applied to evidentiality
This paper offers such an approach and studies the predictions that follow from it in a sample of native languages of Brazil
2
3
Introduction
The sample consists of 64 languages out of the 226 extant and extinct native languages of Brazil
It contains languages from 15 out of the 20 major genetic groupings
Of the 64 sample languages 34 have at least one evidential subcategory
3
4
Contents
1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar
2. Evidentiality in Functional Discourse Grammar
3. The co-existence of evidential subcategories
4. The co-occurrence of evidential subcategories
5. Conclusions
4
5
1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar
6
Layering
Hidatsa (Matthews 1965)Wírai ápáari ki stao ski.tree it grow INGR REM.PST CERT‘The tree must have begun to grow a long time ago.’
certainty (remote past (ingressive (predicate+arguments)))
6
7
Layers
7
Interpersonal Level
Discourse Act
> Illocution > Communicated Content
∨
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
> Episode > State-of-Affairs
> Situational Concept
8
TMA categoriesInterpersonalLevel
discourse act illocution communicated content
Mood basic illocution
Representatio-
nal Level
propositionalContent
episode state-of-affairs situational concept
Aspect event quantification
phasalaspect
Tense absolute tense relative tense
Mood subjectiveepistemicmodality
objectiveepistemicmodality
event-oriented modality
participant-orientedmodality
9
Grammaticalization
Within a level, TMA categories start out at the lowest layer and gradually expand their scope moving to higher layers
Across levels, TMA categories may move up at any point from the representational to the interpersonal level
10
Grammaticalization
10
Interpersonal Level
Discourse Act
← Illocution ← Communicated Content
↑
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
← Episode ← State-of-Affairs
← Situational Concept
11
2. Evidentiality in Functional Discourse
Grammar
12
Four types of evidentiality
ReportativityInferenceDeductionEvent Perception
13
Reportativity
Reportativity distinctions indicate that the speaker is not expressing his/her own cognitive material, but is passing on the opinions of others.
This means that reportativity operates at the layer of the communicated content at the Interpersonal Level: the message content contained in a discourse act is characterized as transmitted rather than originally produced.
14
Reportativity
14
Interpersonal Level
Discourse Act
> Illocution > Communicated Content
∨
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
> Episode > State-of-Affairs
> Situational Concept
15
Reportativity
Lakondê (Telles & Wetzels 2006: 240)Ta'wḛn 'teh-'naw ta-'aLjh-wi-setaw-'tãn’.woodspath-LOCDIR-walk-1.DU-REP-IMPF‘Let’s walk to the path in the woods,
someone told me.’
16
Inference
The speaker infers a certain piece of information on the basis of his/her own existing knowledge.
It operates at the layer of the propositional content at the Representational Level. This layer deals with mental constructs as represented in the speakers’s brain.
17
Inference
17
Interpersonal Level
Discourse Act
> Illocution > Communicated Content
∨
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
> Episode > State-of-Affairs
> Situational Concept
18
Inference
Karo (Gabas 2004: 269)Aʔ=ket-t memã. 3.SG=sleep-IND INFER‘I suppose he is sleeping.’
19
Deduction
The speaker deduces the information he/she presents from perceptual evidence.
Deduction necessarily involves two states-of-affairs: the perceived one and the deduced one: the speaker deduces the occurrence of one state-of-affairs on the basis of another.
Deduction therefore operates at the layer of the Episode.
20
Deduction
20
Interpersonal Level
Discourse Act
> Illocution > Communicated Content
∨
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
> Episode > State-of-Affairs
> Situational Concept
21
Deduction
Tariana (Aikhenvald 2003: 288)Tʃinu niwhã-nihka di-na.dog 3.SG.NF.bite-REC.PST.DED 3.SG.NF-OBJ‘The dog bit him (I can see obvious signs).’
22
Event perception
The speaker witnessed the event directly through one of the senses.
Event perception operates at the layer of the state-of-affairs, as it is this state-of-affairs that is directly perceived.
23
Event perception
23
Interpersonal Level
Discourse Act
> Illocution > Communicated Content
∨
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
> Episode > State-of-Affairs
> Situational Concept
24
Event perceptionLakondê (Telles & Wetzels 2006: 246, 247)
Wi-'hat-ø-'tãn-'ti.eat-not.have-3.SG-IMPF-PST.PERC.VIS‘He did not eat.’ (I saw it)
'WaLja hejn-ka-ta-'tãwn you.PL wash-BEN-1.OBJ-CMPL
'pat-'tãna-si.leave.2.SG.IMPF-PERC.NONVIS
‘You have washed (something) for me.’ (I heard the sound coming from the river)’
25
Four types of evidentiality
C: Reportativityp: Inferenceep: Deductione: Event Perception
26
Distinguishing features
Combinability with behavioural illocutions
Hup (Epps 2008: 655-656)yɔY-ɔZY=mah.fear-DYN=REP‘(He’s) scared, he says.’
næn=mah!come=REP‘Come here, she said!’
27
Distinguishing features
Interaction with absolute and relative tense:
I infer that he is/has been/had been smoking
I smell that he is/has been/*had been smoking
I see him smoking/*having been smoking
28
Distinguishing features
Criterion
Evidential Subcategory
Combines withbehaviouralillocutions
Takes absolutetense within itsscope
Takes relativetense within itsscope
Reportativity + + +
Inference - + +
Deduction - - +
Event Perception - - -
29
Evidentiality in FDGInterpersonalLevel
discourse act illocution communicated content
Mood basic illocution
Evidentiality reportativity
Representatio-
nal Level
propositionalContent
episode state-of-affairs situational concept
Aspect event quantification
phasalaspect
Tense absolute tense relative tense
Evidentiality inference deduction eventperception
Mood subjectiveepistemicmodality
objectiveepistemicmodality
event-oriented modality
participant-orientedmodality
30
Evidentiality in FDGInterpersonalLevel
discourse act illocution communicated content
Mood basic illocution
Evidentiality reportativity
Representatio-
nal Level
propositionalContent
episode state-of-affairs situational concept
Aspect event quantification
phasalaspect
Tense absolute tense relative tense
Evidentiality inference deduction eventperception
Mood subjectiveepistemicmodality
objectiveepistemicmodality
event-oriented modality
participant-orientedmodality
31
Evidentiality in FDGInterpersonalLevel
discourse act illocution communicated content
Mood basic illocution
Evidentiality reportativity
Representatio-
nal Level
propositionalContent
episode state-of-affairs situational concept
Aspect event quantification
phasalaspect
Tense absolute tense relative tense
Evidentiality inference deduction eventperception
Mood subjectiveepistemicmodality
objectiveepistemicmodality
event-oriented modality
participant-orientedmodality
32
Evidentiality in FDGInterpersonalLevel
discourse act illocution communicated content
Mood basic illocution
Evidentiality reportativity
Representatio-
nal Level
propositionalContent
episode state-of-affairs situational concept
Aspect event quantification
phasalaspect
Tense absolute tense relative tense
Evidentiality inference deduction eventperception
Mood subjectiveepistemicmodality
objectiveepistemicmodality
event-oriented modality
participant-orientedmodality
33
Evidentiality in FDGInterpersonalLevel
discourse act illocution communicated content
Mood basic illocution
Evidentiality reportativity
Representatio-
nal Level
propositionalContent
episode state-of-affairs situational concept
Aspect event quantification
phasalaspect
Tense absolute tense relative tense
Evidentiality inference deduction eventperception
Mood subjectiveepistemicmodality
objectiveepistemicmodality
event-oriented modality
participant-orientedmodality
34
Comparison
Source Classification of evidential categories
This paper Representational Interpersonal
Event Perception Deduction Inference Reportativity
Willett (1988) Direct Indirect
Inferring Reported
De Haan (1998) Direct Indirect
Inferential Quotative
Plungian (2010) Direct Indirect
Inferential Presumptive Reportative
San Roque & Loughnane (2012)
Direct Indirect
Results Reasoning Reported
35
3. The co-existence of evidential subcategories
36
Prediction
There is an implicational relationship between evidential meanings present in a language according to the following evidentiality hierarchy:
event perception ⊂ deduction ⊂ inference
This follows from the FDG view on grammaticalization
37
Results (qualitative)Level Representational Interpersonal # lgs in
sampleEvidentialsystem
Eventperception
Deduction Inference
Reportativity
1a + + + + 12
1b + + + - 2
2a + + – + 9
2b + + – – 0
3a + – – + 4
3b + – – – 0
4a – – – + 7
4b – – – – 30
Total 64
38
Results (qualitative)Level Representational Interpersonal # lgs in
sampleEvidentialsystem
Eventperception
Deduction Inference
Reportativity
1 + + + (+) 14
2 + + – (+) 9
3 + – – (+) 4
4 – – – (+) 37
Total 64
39
Results (qualitative)Level Representational Interpersonal # lgs in
sampleEvidentialsystem
Eventperception
Deduction Inference
Reportativity
* - + + (+) 0
* + - + (+) 0
* - – + (+) 0
* – + – (+) 0
Total 0
40
Desano
Desano (Miller 1999: 65-68)
Reportativity:Bãdu yɨ tĩgɨ-re paa-pɨ. Manuel 1.SG brother-SPEC hit-REP.3.M.SG‘Manuel hit my older brother (it is said).’
Inference:Bɨ Zʔɨ Z yoaro-ge aʔhra-y-a.2.SG far-LOC come-DED-NON3‘You have come a long way (it appears).’
41
DesanoDesano (Miller 1999: 65-68)
Deduction: Pisadã wai-re ba-di-gɨ árĩ-bĩZ.cat fish-SPEC eat-PST-M.SG be-
DED.3.M.SG‘The cat must have eaten the fish.’ (you can see his
paw marks on the ground where he ate it).
Event Perception: Gɨa õ-ge-re era-bɨ.1.PL.EXCL here-LOC-SPEC arrive-NON3.PERC.PST‘We arrive here.’
42
Results (quantitative)Level Representational Interpersonal
Evidential Eventperception
Deduction Inference Reportativity
# lgs with subdistinctions
10 3 0 5
43
Comparison
Willett (1988)
attested ⊂ reported ⊂ inferring
44
Comparison
De Haan (1998)
visual ⊂ non-visual ⊂ inferential ⊂ quotative
45
Comparison
Faller (2002)
46
4. The co-occurrence of evidential subcategories
47
Prediction
If it is true that evidentiality is not one category but actually covers four different subcategories applying at different layers of grammatical structure, we expect it to be possible for two or more evidential expressions from different subcategories to co-occur in a single expression.
48
Co-occurrence (4 subcategories)
I hear (from A) that A inferred on the basis of his existing knowledge that B deduced from visual evidence that C had been smoking, something that B did not witness directly.
49
Co-occurrence (2 subcategories)
Evidentiality
Language
Event Perception
Deduction Inference Reportativity
Yuhup + +
Hup + +
Huariapano, Hup, Jara-wara, Mamaindê,
Sabanê+ +
Karo + +
Wanano + +
Hup, Sabanê , Wanano + +
50
Reportative + Inference
Yuhup (Bozzi 2002:183) hɟidɘkh Zɟàbmcɨ Y nndí nbàh3.PL dance INFER REP‘It seems they dance, it is said.’
51
Reportative + Deduction
Hup (Epps 2008: 658)Hup pãk=cud=mahperson NEG.EX=DED=REP‘There was apparently nobody there,
it’s said.’
52
Reportative + Event Perception
Sabanê (Araújo 2004: 54)waylypi.maysili-ka kan-n-tiaka-danacat.younglings-OBJ die-VS-REP-PERC‘Somebody said that the kitten died.’
53
Inference + Deduction
Karo (Gabas 1999: 277)péŋ aʔ=wĩ-n aket memãwhite.man 3.SG=kill-IND DED INFER‘The white man must have supposedly
killed it/him.’
54
Inference + Event Perception
Wanano (Stenzel 2004: 103)Bora-~sus-ka wa’a-ro fall.down-COMPL-AFFEC go-NMZR
koa-ta-a.PERC.NONVIS-come-INFER.PF
‘He fell right down.’
55
Deduction + Event Perception
Wanano (Stenzel 2004:358)a'yoo tipa-wa-riOh! be.flat-become-NMZR.DED
hi-raCOP-PERC.VIS.IMPF.NON1
‘Oh! This one’s (been) flattened.’
56
5. Conclusions
57
Conclusions
A sharp line should be drawn between reportativity on the one hand, and event perception, deduction, and inference on the other.
The latter three sub-categories enter into an implicational hierarchy, while reportativity forms a sub-category in its own right.
58
Conclusions
Our classification and hierarchy make correct predictions about the co-existence and co-occurrence of evidential sub-categories.
Our hierarchy makes better predictions than existing ones, as a result of the separation of reportativity from all other sub-categories of evidentiality.
59
This presentation is available at www.keeshengeveld.nl