four types of evidentiality kees hengeveld marize mattos dall’aglio hattnher

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

↑


Proposi-tion

← Episode ← State-of-Affairs

← Situational Concept

11

2. Evidentiality in Functional Discourse

Grammar

12


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


∨


Proposi-tion



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


∨


Proposi-tion



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


∨


Proposi-tion



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


∨


Proposi-tion



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


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


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


Criterion

Evidential Subcategory

Combines withbehaviouralillocutions

Takes absolutetense within itsscope

Takes relativetense within itsscope

Reportativity + + +

Inference - + +

Deduction - - +

Event Perception - - -

29

Evidentiality in FDGInterpersonalLevel



Evidentiality reportativity

Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect


Evidentiality inference deduction eventperception





30





Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect







31





Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect







32





Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect







33





Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect







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



Eventperception

Deduction Inference

Reportativity

1 + + + (+) 14

2 + + – (+) 9

3 + – – (+) 4

4 – – – (+) 37

Total 64

39



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

four types of evidentiality kees hengeveld marize mattos dall’aglio hattnher

Documents

interpersonal level

message content

sample languages

grammatical categories

domain of tma

hierarchical approach

evidential subcategory

lowest layer