Evidentiality in RussianEvidentiality in Russian

Elena PADUCHEVAElena PADUCHEVA (Moscow)(Moscow)http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/

The Nature of Evidentiality, Leiden, 14.06.2012The Nature of Evidentiality, Leiden, 14.06.2012

1. Evidentiality as a grammatical 1. Evidentiality as a grammatical category and as a conceptcategory and as a concept

Evidentiality as a Evidentiality as a grammatical categorygrammatical category is to be is to be distinguished from evidentiality as a notion. It is a distinguished from evidentiality as a notion. It is a notional category that should be the basis for notional category that should be the basis for typological comparison, see typological comparison, see Haspelmath 2010Haspelmath 2010. I shall . I shall deal with evidentiality in Russian, which lacks deal with evidentiality in Russian, which lacks grammatical evidentiality, i.e. with the grammatical evidentiality, i.e. with the concept concept of of evidentiality. But grammatical evidentiality is to be evidentiality. But grammatical evidentiality is to be the starting point in any case (see the starting point in any case (see Wiemer, Plungjan Wiemer, Plungjan 20082008 on evidentiality in Slavic languages). on evidentiality in Slavic languages).

I regret the necessity to speak about Russian in I regret the necessity to speak about Russian in the auditorium where the majority doesn’t the auditorium where the majority doesn’t speak Russian. Ungrammaticality examples speak Russian. Ungrammaticality examples from your native language tend to produce an from your native language tend to produce an emotionalemotional effect, while discussing effect, while discussing ungrammaticalities in a foreign language ungrammaticalities in a foreign language resembles explaining a joke that hadn’t made resembles explaining a joke that hadn’t made you laugh. Still I hope my Russian examples you laugh. Still I hope my Russian examples to be at least persuasive on the to be at least persuasive on the mentalmental level. level.

In languages with In languages with grammatical evidentialitygrammatical evidentiality the speaker should, any time (s)he uses a the speaker should, any time (s)he uses a verbal form in a statement, mention the verbal form in a statement, mention the source source of informationof information, or, rather, the , or, rather, the type of accesstype of access to to the information (see, e.g., the information (see, e.g., Aikhenvald 2004, Aikhenvald 2004, Plungian 2011Plungian 2011). In other words, what gives the ). In other words, what gives the speaker grounds for saying what (s)he says?speaker grounds for saying what (s)he says?

Generalized conceptual schemeGeneralized conceptual scheme direct evidentialitydirect evidentiality – the speaker witnessed the – the speaker witnessed the

situation or took part in it:situation or took part in it:Ivan vernulsja ‘Ivan returned’,Ivan vernulsja ‘Ivan returned’, indirect evidentialityindirect evidentiality, i.e. indirect access:, i.e. indirect access:

imprecise perception – imprecise perception – imperceptiveimperceptive::KazhetsjaKazhetsja, paxnet gazom ‘, paxnet gazom ‘it seemsit seems that it smells like gas’, that it smells like gas’,

an inference an inference based on indirect evidence – based on indirect evidence – inferentiveinferentive: : VidimoVidimo, Ivan vernulsja [his suitcase is here] ‘, Ivan vernulsja [his suitcase is here] ‘evidentlyevidently, Ivan , Ivan

returned’, returned’, reported speech – reported speech – reportativereportative: :

Pered smert’ju on, Pered smert’ju on, kak budtokak budto, prinjal islam ‘before death he , prinjal islam ‘before death he seemed seemed to have converted to Islam’ (example of A.Letuchiy).to have converted to Islam’ (example of A.Letuchiy).

2. Indirect evidentiality and non-2. Indirect evidentiality and non-reliabilityreliability

Grammatical indirect evidentiality is not to be Grammatical indirect evidentiality is not to be identified with identified with non-reliabilitynon-reliability of the information. of the information. Unquestionable truths avoid markers of indirect Unquestionable truths avoid markers of indirect access in some languages with grammatical access in some languages with grammatical evidentiality, but in some other languages they are evidentiality, but in some other languages they are compatible, so that indirect evidentiality does not compatible, so that indirect evidentiality does not contradict reliability, contradict reliability, Plungian 2011: 467Plungian 2011: 467. However, . However, in languages where evidentiality markers are not in languages where evidentiality markers are not grammatically obligatory an evidentiality marker grammatically obligatory an evidentiality marker often often reducesreduces the degree of responsibility of the the degree of responsibility of the speaker for the reliability of the information. And it speaker for the reliability of the information. And it concerns markers of direct evidentiality as wellconcerns markers of direct evidentiality as well. .

(2.1) (2.1) Shevardnadze proezzhal po ulicam Shevardnadze proezzhal po ulicam stremitelstremitel’’nono, , ego avtomobilego avtomobil’ ’ ss ččetyrex storon etyrex storon oblepljalioblepljali ( (sam videlsam videl) ) mamaššiny oxranyiny oxrany. . [Russian [Russian National Corpus, RNC] ‘Shevardnadze rode National Corpus, RNC] ‘Shevardnadze rode through the streets dashingly, his car was through the streets dashingly, his car was surrounded on four sides (surrounded on four sides (I saw it myselfI saw it myself) by ) by the cars of the guard.’ the cars of the guard.’

In fact, for Russian, as well as for other languages In fact, for Russian, as well as for other languages lacking grammatical evidentiality, the postulate lacking grammatical evidentiality, the postulate is valid saying that in any statement the speaker is valid saying that in any statement the speaker is the subject of an is the subject of an epistemic obligationepistemic obligation: my : my utterance P implies ‘I know that P’ or ‘I believe utterance P implies ‘I know that P’ or ‘I believe that P’, depending on the type of the proposition that P’, depending on the type of the proposition P. If predication P is basically evaluative then the P. If predication P is basically evaluative then the second variant is realized. Hence the famous second variant is realized. Hence the famous MooreMoore’’s s paradox (see paradox (see Wittgenstein 1953Wittgenstein 1953): the ): the utterance utterance She is pretty but I don't believe itShe is pretty but I don't believe it is is deviant, because deviant, because She is pretty She is pretty basically means ‘I basically means ‘I believe that she is pretty’.believe that she is pretty’.

In In Plungian 2011: 467Plungian 2011: 467 a situation in central upic a situation in central upic (an Eskimo language) is described (with (an Eskimo language) is described (with reference to reference to Mithan 1999Mithan 1999) where the marker of ) where the marker of indirect evidentiality attaches a indirect evidentiality attaches a greatergreater degree degree of reliability to the utterance – because of reliability to the utterance – because collective experience is more reliable than collective experience is more reliable than personal testimony. So the Russian semantic personal testimony. So the Russian semantic pattern is no typological outsider. pattern is no typological outsider.

3. Unclear boundary between direct 3. Unclear boundary between direct and inferentive evidentialityand inferentive evidentiality

The direct evidentiality corresponds to the case The direct evidentiality corresponds to the case when the speaker saw with his own eyes what when the speaker saw with his own eyes what he speaks about. But, as is known, the verb he speaks about. But, as is known, the verb meaning ‘see’, in Russian and not only in meaning ‘see’, in Russian and not only in Russian, is Russian, is essentially ambiguousessentially ambiguous: productive : productive semantic derivation transfers this verb from semantic derivation transfers this verb from the class of perception verbs to the class of the class of perception verbs to the class of mental ones, see, e.g., mental ones, see, e.g., Paducheva 2004: 199Paducheva 2004: 199. . Hence the absence of a strict boundary Hence the absence of a strict boundary between direct and inferentive evidentiality. between direct and inferentive evidentiality.

The famous example by The famous example by Anna WierzbickaAnna Wierzbicka. . Which evidentiality is here expressed by Which evidentiality is here expressed by ja ja vizhu vizhu ‘I see’?‘I see’?

(3.1) Ja vizhu, Dzhona zdes’ net [approximate (3.1) Ja vizhu, Dzhona zdes’ net [approximate translation – ‘I see, John is absent here’].translation – ‘I see, John is absent here’].

Parenthetical Parenthetical ja vizhuja vizhu marks inferentive evidentiality marks inferentive evidentiality more often than not:more often than not:

(3.2) Ja vas za gorduju s(3.2) Ja vas za gorduju sččitala, a vy, itala, a vy, ja vizhuja vizhu, prostaja ‘I , prostaja ‘I considered you to be proud, while you are, considered you to be proud, while you are, I see itI see it, , plain’ [RNC] plain’ [RNC]

(3.3) (3.3) Он еще до знакомства со мной несколько раз находился в Он еще до знакомства со мной несколько раз находился в психиатрической лечебнице, но я тогда, дура, не придала психиатрической лечебнице, но я тогда, дура, не придала этому значения. ― этому значения. ― Я вижуЯ вижу, ты не очень довольна своим , ты не очень довольна своим

замужеством.замужеством. [RNC] ‘before we met he had been in a [RNC] ‘before we met he had been in a psychiatric hospital several times, but I, being a fool, psychiatric hospital several times, but I, being a fool, didn’t pay attention to it. – didn’t pay attention to it. – I seeI see, you aren’t very much , you aren’t very much content with your marriage.’content with your marriage.’. .

More than that, the word More than that, the word javnojavno, meaning , meaning ‘obviously, visibly, apparently’, ‘obviously, visibly, apparently’, cannotcannot be used be used in the context of a verb denoting observable in the context of a verb denoting observable action or process. In (3.4), for example, action or process. In (3.4), for example, javnojavno is is at place because the verb at place because the verb udarit’udarit’ ‘hit’ is used in ‘hit’ is used in a figurative meaning:a figurative meaning:

((3.4) 3.4) Наивный офицер Наивный офицер явно ударилявно ударил главу кабинета по главу кабинета по

больному, по наболевшему месту.больному, по наболевшему месту. [RNC] ‘the naïve [RNC] ‘the naïve officer officer apparently hitapparently hit the head of the cabinet where it the head of the cabinet where it hurts’hurts’. .

It is important that parenthetical It is important that parenthetical ja vizhuja vizhu can be can be used not only in assertions but also in questions, used not only in assertions but also in questions, which are incompatible with direct evidentiality: which are incompatible with direct evidentiality:

(3.5) Nu-s, vy, (3.5) Nu-s, vy, ja vizhuja vizhu, uzhe pristupili? ‘so, , uzhe pristupili? ‘so, as I as I seesee, you’ve already begun?’ , you’ve already begun?’ [[RNCRNC] ]

The notion of direct evidentiality as it is usually The notion of direct evidentiality as it is usually defined is applicable only to assertions. So what defined is applicable only to assertions. So what about questions? I leave this issue as a problem about questions? I leave this issue as a problem for the future.for the future.

4. An example of a grammatically marked 4. An example of a grammatically marked evidentiality opposition in Russianevidentiality opposition in Russian

In Russian there is a morphological In Russian there is a morphological opposition,opposition, which can be identified, as to its which can be identified, as to its semantics, as marking evidentiality; example semantics, as marking evidentiality; example from from Paducheva 2004: 467-8Paducheva 2004: 467-8..

(4.1) a. (4.1) a. ButylkiButylki [Gen] ne [Gen] ne bylobylo [neutral gender] v [neutral gender] v xolodil’nike – xolodil’nike – direct evidentialitydirect evidentiality

b. b. ButylkaButylka [Nom] ne [Nom] ne bylabyla [feminine gender] v [feminine gender] v xolodil’nike – xolodil’nike – inferentive evidentialityinferentive evidentiality

‘ ‘the bottle was not /hasn’t been in the fridge’ the bottle was not /hasn’t been in the fridge’ ..

The Genitive subject and Neutral gender of the The Genitive subject and Neutral gender of the non-personal predicate in (4.1a) express direct non-personal predicate in (4.1a) express direct evidentiality, while common Nominative evidentiality, while common Nominative subject and feminine gender of the predicate subject and feminine gender of the predicate (agreeing with the subject) are interpreted as (agreeing with the subject) are interpreted as expressing inferentive evidentiality.expressing inferentive evidentiality.

According to the interpretation of the Genitive subject According to the interpretation of the Genitive subject suggested in suggested in Paducheva 1992Paducheva 1992, sentence (4.1a) , sentence (4.1a) conceptualizes the situation in which the speaker conceptualizes the situation in which the speaker fulfills the role of the fulfills the role of the observerobserver. The widely . The widely influential book influential book Babby 1980Babby 1980, called “Existential , called “Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian”, connected the Sentences and Negation in Russian”, connected the Russian Genitive Negative subject with existential Russian Genitive Negative subject with existential sentences. Now sentence (4.1a) expresses sentences. Now sentence (4.1a) expresses localizationlocalization, not , not existenceexistence. It contradicts semantic . It contradicts semantic motivation of the Genitive subject proposed by motivation of the Genitive subject proposed by Babby (and some others) and was considered to be an Babby (and some others) and was considered to be an exception. But the exception it was not. Genitive exception. But the exception it was not. Genitive subject in (4.1a), as in many other sentences, is subject in (4.1a), as in many other sentences, is licensed by the semantic component ‘perception’: it is licensed by the semantic component ‘perception’: it is not the case that sentence (4.1a) negates localization not the case that sentence (4.1a) negates localization – it expresses the – it expresses the observed absenceobserved absence, i.e. the presence , i.e. the presence of the of the speaker-observerspeaker-observer at the location in question. at the location in question.

Example (4.1) doesn’t mean to purport that Example (4.1) doesn’t mean to purport that Russian has grammatical evidentiality. Russian has grammatical evidentiality. Inferentive is just one of possible Inferentive is just one of possible interpretations of implied evidentiality in interpretations of implied evidentiality in sentence (4.1b): reportative interpretation is sentence (4.1b): reportative interpretation is also possible. But direct evidentiality is also possible. But direct evidentiality is excluded in (4.1b) and is expressed by excluded in (4.1b) and is expressed by grammatical means in (4.1a). grammatical means in (4.1a).

Example (4.2) supports the analysis suggested. Example (4.2) supports the analysis suggested. The utterance (4.2a) sounds awfully The utterance (4.2a) sounds awfully ridiculous. (It was made by a woman, ridiculous. (It was made by a woman, perhaps, some travel agent, who was buying perhaps, some travel agent, who was buying something in a shop and at some moment got something in a shop and at some moment got a mobile call.) She should have said (4.2b). a mobile call.) She should have said (4.2b).

(4.2) a. *(4.2) a. *MenjaMenja net v ofise ‘ net v ofise ‘meme [Genitive] not-be in the [Genitive] not-be in the office’ office’

b. b. JaJa ne v ofise “ ne v ofise “II [Nom] am not in my office [Nom] am not in my office <where I have my computer and other things that <where I have my computer and other things that would help me answer questions of a client>”would help me answer questions of a client>”

In fact, (4.2a) is contradictory: it In fact, (4.2a) is contradictory: it presupposespresupposes the speaker in the role of the observer in the the speaker in the role of the observer in the office and office and assertsasserts that she is not there. The that she is not there. The Genitive in (4.3) is perfectly OK. In fact, the Genitive in (4.3) is perfectly OK. In fact, the utterance relies upon utterance relies upon the addresseethe addressee – who will – who will be present at the location mentioned and will be present at the location mentioned and will fulfill the role of the observer of the speaker’s fulfill the role of the observer of the speaker’s absence:absence:

(4.3) Menja zavtra ne budet v institute ‘me [Genitive] (4.3) Menja zavtra ne budet v institute ‘me [Genitive] won’t be at the institute to-morrow’.won’t be at the institute to-morrow’.

This is the case of This is the case of deictical projectiondeictical projection that that we’ll return to a bit later.we’ll return to a bit later.

5. Implied observer as a marker 5. Implied observer as a marker of direct evidentialityof direct evidentiality

Theoretical semantics is now unthinkable Theoretical semantics is now unthinkable without the notion of the without the notion of the observerobserver introduced in introduced in Apresjan 1986Apresjan 1986 (see also (see also Paducheva 1996, 2011Paducheva 1996, 2011). ). For instance, while saying (5.1), the speaker not For instance, while saying (5.1), the speaker not only asserts that some event took place but also only asserts that some event took place but also implies that (s)he is the witness of it: implies that (s)he is the witness of it:

(5.1) Na doroge (5.1) Na doroge pokazalsjapokazalsja vsadnik ‘On the road vsadnik ‘On the road appearedappeared a rider’ (example from a rider’ (example from Apresjan 1986Apresjan 1986).).

The presence of the observer is proved by the The presence of the observer is proved by the following syntactic test – sentence (5.2), with the following syntactic test – sentence (5.2), with the 1st person subject, is deviant – in fact, a person 1st person subject, is deviant – in fact, a person cannot appear in the field of vision of cannot appear in the field of vision of him/herself:him/herself:

(5.2) *Na doroge (5.2) *Na doroge pokazalsjapokazalsja ja ‘*On the road ja ‘*On the road appearedappeared I’. I’.

This test was mentioned already in Fillmore This test was mentioned already in Fillmore 1968, in connection with the verb 1968, in connection with the verb to lurkto lurk: :

(5.3) a. The snake was (5.3) a. The snake was lurkinglurking in the grass in the grass b.*I was b.*I was lurkinglurking in the grass. in the grass.

Thus, in sentences (4.1a), (5.1), with the implied Thus, in sentences (4.1a), (5.1), with the implied observer, the genitive subject can be treated as a observer, the genitive subject can be treated as a marker of direct evidentiality. marker of direct evidentiality.

The notion of observer was the object of attention The notion of observer was the object of attention in lexical semantics for several decades, but until in lexical semantics for several decades, but until recently the observer was not related to direct recently the observer was not related to direct evidentiality. The interpretation of sentences with evidentiality. The interpretation of sentences with the observer as containing evidentiality marker the observer as containing evidentiality marker was proposed by was proposed by Y.G.TestelecY.G.Testelec. .

6. Evidentiality marker as a primary 6. Evidentiality marker as a primary egocentrical: projection effectsegocentrical: projection effects

Evidentiality markers have the speaker as their implied Evidentiality markers have the speaker as their implied subject. Thus, they are included in the category of subject. Thus, they are included in the category of egocentricalegocentrical elements – elements – egocentricals egocentricals (or, in other (or, in other terminology, terminology, indexicalindexical elements, elements, indexicalsindexicals). Thus, we ). Thus, we get the opportunity to pay attention to some aspects of get the opportunity to pay attention to some aspects of their semantics that were neglected earlier.their semantics that were neglected earlier.

In the literature devoted to evidentials their only implied In the literature devoted to evidentials their only implied subject is always the speaker, cf., e.g. subject is always the speaker, cf., e.g. Plungjan 2011: Plungjan 2011: 449449: “using an evidentiality marker : “using an evidentiality marker the speakerthe speaker tells us tells us in which way (s)he learned what (s)he says”. But it is a in which way (s)he learned what (s)he says”. But it is a well known fact about egocentricals that they can well known fact about egocentricals that they can undergo undergo projectionprojection – in the sense that in some specific – in the sense that in some specific context their implied subject is not the speaker but context their implied subject is not the speaker but some other person.some other person.

In In Lyons 1979Lyons 1979 the notion of projection was introduced the notion of projection was introduced for for deicticdeictic elements, such as elements, such as herehere and and nownow, in , in connection with connection with non-canonical communicative non-canonical communicative situationssituations. This idea was developed also in . This idea was developed also in Fillmore Fillmore 19751975: : John is now comingJohn is now coming means ‘John is coming means ‘John is coming to to meme’, i.e. to the speaker, but a question ’, i.e. to the speaker, but a question Is John is now Is John is now comingcoming? may mean ‘is John is coming ? may mean ‘is John is coming to youto you?’, i.e. to ?’, i.e. to the addressee. We can also speak about the addressee. We can also speak about narrativenarrative projection (when the speaker is absent and the role of projection (when the speaker is absent and the role of the speaker is fulfilled either by the narrator or the the speaker is fulfilled either by the narrator or the character) and character) and hypotactichypotactic projection when the subject projection when the subject of the matrix sentence is the rival of the speaker. of the matrix sentence is the rival of the speaker.

There is an extensive literature on There is an extensive literature on secondarysecondary egocentricals (see a survey of the literature in egocentricals (see a survey of the literature in Paducheva 1996, 2011Paducheva 1996, 2011), which easily undergo ), which easily undergo projection. English projection. English lurklurk and Russian and Russian pokazat’sjapokazat’sja ‘appear’ are well known examples ‘appear’ are well known examples of secondary egocentricals. Sentence (5.2) is of secondary egocentricals. Sentence (5.2) is deviant; but in a hypotactic context it’s OK:deviant; but in a hypotactic context it’s OK:

(5.2) *Na doroge (5.2) *Na doroge pokazalsjapokazalsja ja ‘*On the road ja ‘*On the road appearedappeared I’; I’;

(5.2’) Mne skazali, chto imenno v etot moment (5.2’) Mne skazali, chto imenno v etot moment na doroge na doroge pokazalsjapokazalsja ja ‘It was said that I ja ‘It was said that I appearedappeared on the road exactly at this moment’ on the road exactly at this moment’

A similar test is applicable in the construction A similar test is applicable in the construction with the genitive subject:with the genitive subject:

(5.4) *Menja net doma ‘me [Genitive] not at home’ (5.4) *Menja net doma ‘me [Genitive] not at home’ [controversial];[controversial];

(5.4’) Emu skazali, chto menja net doma ‘he was said (5.4’) Emu skazali, chto menja net doma ‘he was said that me [Genitive] not at home’ [OK].that me [Genitive] not at home’ [OK].

It stands to reason to explore whether It stands to reason to explore whether evidentiality markers can undergo any kind of evidentiality markers can undergo any kind of projection.projection.

Let us look at the Russian parenthetical Let us look at the Russian parenthetical okazyvaetsjaokazyvaetsja. . It was treated as an evidentiality marker, namely, as a It was treated as an evidentiality marker, namely, as a marker of admirativity, and as a separate grammatical marker of admirativity, and as a separate grammatical category (category (Khrakovskij 2007Khrakovskij 2007). It is, rather, just a ). It is, rather, just a parenthetical word, semantically similar to an parenthetical word, semantically similar to an evidentiality marker. The peculiarities of its use are evidentiality marker. The peculiarities of its use are demonstrated by the opposition demonstrated by the opposition okazyvaetsja okazyvaetsja [present [present imperfective] – imperfective] – okazalos’ okazalos’ [past perfective]. The word [past perfective]. The word okazalos’ okazalos’ is relatively simple and can be translated is relatively simple and can be translated into English as ‘it turned out’, while the present of into English as ‘it turned out’, while the present of okazyvaetsjaokazyvaetsja makes it difficult to translate. Even in its makes it difficult to translate. Even in its primary meaning its translations are often wrong. But primary meaning its translations are often wrong. But it can be used in such a way that it it can be used in such a way that it looses its looses its connection with the speaker as the implied subjectconnection with the speaker as the implied subject, , and in this use it has no English equivalent at all. and in this use it has no English equivalent at all.

The meaning of The meaning of okazyvaetsja ‘it turnes out’okazyvaetsja ‘it turnes out’, in , in its primary use, includes the following two its primary use, includes the following two components: components:

okazyvaetsjaokazyvaetsja (X, P) = (X, P) =

1) X has just learned <from Y>, that P; 1) X has just learned <from Y>, that P; 2) X is astonished that P.2) X is astonished that P.

In the prototypical case the subject of both In the prototypical case the subject of both knowledge and astonishment is the speaker:knowledge and astonishment is the speaker:

((6.6.1) 1) Я так рада! Нашлись, нашлись! Они, Я так рада! Нашлись, нашлись! Они, оказываетсяоказывается, , болели и не подавали весточек!болели и не подавали весточек!

(L.Petrushevskaja. Three young girls in blue) ‘I’m so (L.Petrushevskaja. Three young girls in blue) ‘I’m so happy! They are found! happy! They are found! It turns outIt turns out that they were ill that they were ill and didn’t let anybody know about themselves’and didn’t let anybody know about themselves’

The source Y of the new knowledge is in (6.1) The source Y of the new knowledge is in (6.1) off-stage. This participant may not exist at all off-stage. This participant may not exist at all – when the speaker receives his knowledge – when the speaker receives his knowledge from the direct perception: from the direct perception:

(6.2) (6.2) Вернулся домой, на крылечко взошел, хотел Вернулся домой, на крылечко взошел, хотел было дверь открыть, а она, было дверь открыть, а она, okazyvaetsjaokazyvaetsja, изнутри , изнутри

на засов заперта.на засов заперта. [RNC] ‘I returned home, went [RNC] ‘I returned home, went up the porch, wanted to open the door and it is, up the porch, wanted to open the door and it is, it turns outit turns out, closed on the bolt from the inside’, closed on the bolt from the inside’ ..

It may also be the case that the participant Y exists It may also be the case that the participant Y exists but the information received by X from Y had not but the information received by X from Y had not become the become the knowledgeknowledge of X. In example (6.3) the of X. In example (6.3) the person Y (mother) has an person Y (mother) has an opinionopinion (for Y herself, it is (for Y herself, it is knowledge!) which is not shared by the speaker – knowledge!) which is not shared by the speaker – thus, the speaker is the subject of astonishment but thus, the speaker is the subject of astonishment but he he is not the subject of knowledgeis not the subject of knowledge..

(6.3) Мама все время пытается воспитывать его на моем (6.3) Мама все время пытается воспитывать его на моем положительном примере. положительном примере. OkazyvaetsjaOkazyvaetsja, я стал человеком , я стал человеком благодаря трудолюбию и настойчивости, которые благодаря трудолюбию и настойчивости, которые проявлялись у меня в раннем детстве (проявлялись у меня в раннем детстве (VV..AksenovAksenov. . Star Star ticketticket). ). ‘My mother always tries to bring him up on my ‘My mother always tries to bring him up on my positive example. positive example. It turns outIt turns out, I became a worthy person , I became a worthy person through diligence and persistency that were characteristic of through diligence and persistency that were characteristic of me from my early childhood’me from my early childhood’. .

This use of This use of okazyvaetsjaokazyvaetsja in (6.3) can be in (6.3) can be regarded as the case of narrative projection (= regarded as the case of narrative projection (= free indirect discoursefree indirect discourse). The speaker could ). The speaker could have said have said according to heraccording to her [mother], leaving [mother], leaving his astonishment unexpressed. But he rather his astonishment unexpressed. But he rather pretends to share the knowledgepretends to share the knowledge, for otherwise , for otherwise he cannot express his astonishment, or, rather, he cannot express his astonishment, or, rather, removalremoval from the consciousness of the from the consciousness of the counteragent.counteragent.

Another evidentiality marker that can undergo Another evidentiality marker that can undergo projection is the parenthetical projection is the parenthetical kazhetsjakazhetsja ‘it ‘it seems’. In example (6.4) the use of seems’. In example (6.4) the use of kazhetsjakazhetsja causes perplexing: causes perplexing: kazhetsjakazhetsja expresses expresses uncertainty, and the speaker cannot possibly uncertainty, and the speaker cannot possibly have any uncertainty about the language (s)he have any uncertainty about the language (s)he speaks:speaks:

(6.4) (6.4) ПерестаньПерестань! ! ВедьВедь яя, , кажетсякажется, , русскимрусским языкомязыком

говорюговорю.. ‘Stop! In fact, I ‘Stop! In fact, I seem seem to speak Russian to speak Russian (= your native language) to you’(= your native language) to you’

A possible explanation is that utterance (6.4) A possible explanation is that utterance (6.4) occurs in a modal context (where occurs in a modal context (where kazhetsja kazhetsja = = kazalos’ bykazalos’ by = ‘might seem’), which cancels the = ‘might seem’), which cancels the connection between the implied subject and the connection between the implied subject and the speaker: a new meaning arises: ‘everyone speaker: a new meaning arises: ‘everyone should believe that I speak Russian’. As a result should believe that I speak Russian’. As a result of this generalization the addressee is included of this generalization the addressee is included in the list of the alleged bearers of the opinion. in the list of the alleged bearers of the opinion. Thus, (6.4) expresses surprise turning into Thus, (6.4) expresses surprise turning into anger: ‘as the addressee knows that I speak anger: ‘as the addressee knows that I speak Russian with him why doesn’t he understand Russian with him why doesn’t he understand what is said’.what is said’.

Exploration of projection possibilities for the Exploration of projection possibilities for the subject of subject of indicative modalityindicative modality yielded results yielded results crucial for the theory of narrative and crucial for the theory of narrative and semiotics of error (semiotics of error (Paducheva 2008Paducheva 2008). The ). The problem of projection possibilities for the problem of projection possibilities for the subject of evidentiality seems now to be of subject of evidentiality seems now to be of primary importance for linguistic theory and primary importance for linguistic theory and for practical language description. for practical language description.

ReferencesReferences Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2004. Evidentiality, Oxford etc.: Oxford UP. Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2004. Evidentiality, Oxford etc.: Oxford UP. Babby 1980 – Babby 1980 – Babby L. H.Babby L. H. Existential Sentences and Negation Existential Sentences and Negation

in Russian. Ann Arbor: Caroma Publishers, 1980.in Russian. Ann Arbor: Caroma Publishers, 1980. Fillmore 1968 – Fillmore 1968 – Fillmore Ch. J.Fillmore Ch. J. Lexical entries for verbs // Lexical entries for verbs //

Foundations of Language. Vol. 4. No. 4. 1968.Foundations of Language. Vol. 4. No. 4. 1968. Fillmore 1975 – Fillmore 1975 – Fillmore Ch.JFillmore Ch.J. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. . Santa Cruz lectures on deixis.

Reproduced by the Indiana university linguistic club. Reproduced by the Indiana university linguistic club. Bloomington (Indiana), 1975.Bloomington (Indiana), 1975.

Haspelmath 2010 – Haspelmath 2010 – Haspelmath MHaspelmath M. Comparative concepts and . Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies, Language 86, descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies, Language 86, 2010.2010.

Lyons Lyons 19771977  ––  Lyons JLyons J.. SemanticsSemantics. . Vol. 1–2. L. etc.: Cambridge Vol. 1–2. L. etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977. Univ. Press, 1977.

PaduchevaPaducheva 1992 – 1992 – ПадучеваПадучева  Е.Е.  В.В. О семантическом подходе к О семантическом подходе к синтаксису и генитивном субъекте глагола БЫТЬ.синтаксису и генитивном субъекте глагола БЫТЬ. Russian Russian linguistics, v. 16, 53-63. linguistics, v. 16, 53-63.

Mithun 1999 – Mithun M. The languages of native North America. Mithun 1999 – Mithun M. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge U.Press, 1999. Cambridge: Cambridge U.Press, 1999.

Paducheva 1996 – Paducheva 1996 – ПадучеваПадучева  ЕЕ. . ВВ.. СемантическиеСемантические исследованияисследования. . ММ.: .: ЯзыкиЯзыки русрус. . культурыкультуры, 1996. , 1996. 2-2-d editiond edition http://lexicograph.ruslang.ruru//TextPdfTextPdf1/1/PaduSemantIsslPaduSemantIssl1996.1996.pdf pdf

Paducheva Paducheva 2004 – 2004 – Падучева Е. В.Падучева Е. В. Динамические модели в Динамические модели в семантике лексики. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2004.семантике лексики. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2004. http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/PaduDinamMod2004.pdfhttp://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/PaduDinamMod2004.pdf

Paducheva Paducheva 2008 – 2008 – Падучева Е.ВПадучева Е.В. Режим интерпретации как . Режим интерпретации как контекст, снимающий неоднозначность. //Компьютерная контекст, снимающий неоднозначность. //Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии. Вып. 7 (14). лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии. Вып. 7 (14). Диалог 2008, 412-419. Диалог 2008, 412-419. http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf2/dialog_2008_Paducheva.pdf http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf2/dialog_2008_Paducheva.pdf

PaduchevaPaducheva 2011 – 2011 – Падучева Е.ВПадучева Е.В. Эгоцентрические валентности . Эгоцентрические валентности и деконструкция говорящего. Вопр.яз., 2011, № 3, 3-18 и деконструкция говорящего. Вопр.яз., 2011, № 3, 3-18 http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/egocentricals.pdfhttp://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/egocentricals.pdf

Plungjan Plungjan 2011 – 2011 – Плунгян В.АПлунгян В.А. Введение в грамматическую . Введение в грамматическую семантику: грамматические значения и грамматические семантику: грамматические значения и грамматические системы языков мира. М., РГГУ, 2011системы языков мира. М., РГГУ, 2011..

Wiemer, Plungjan 2008 – Wiemer B. & Plungjan V. (eds.) Wiemer, Plungjan 2008 – Wiemer B. & Plungjan V. (eds.) Lexicalische Evidenzialitats-Marker in slavischen Sprachen. Lexicalische Evidenzialitats-Marker in slavischen Sprachen. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sbd 72, Kubon & Sagner.Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sbd 72, Kubon & Sagner.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishers, p. 190.Blackwell Publishers, p. 190.

Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention