Four types of evidentiality

Four types of evidentiality

Kees HengeveldMarize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher

2

IntroductionA 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

IntroductionThe 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

Contents1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar2. Evidentiality in Functional Discourse

Grammar3. The co-existence of evidential

subcategories4. The co-occurrence of evidential

subcategories5. Conclusions

4

5

1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar

6

LayeringHidatsa (Matthews 1965)Wíra i ápáari ki

stao ski.tree it grow INGRREM.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

GrammaticalizationWithin 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

2. Evidentiality in Functional Discourse

Grammar

12

Four types of evidentialityReportativityInferenceDeductionEvent Perception

13

ReportativityReportativity 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

ReportativityLakondê (Telles & Wetzels 2006: 240)Ta'wḛn 'teh-'naw ta-'ajh-wi-setaw-'tãn’.woods path-LOC DIR-walk-1.DU-REP-IMPF‘Let’s walk to the path in the woods,

someone told me.’

16

InferenceThe 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

InferenceKaro (Gabas 2004: 269)Aʔ=ket-t memã. 3.SG=sleep-IND INFER‘I suppose he is sleeping.’

19

DeductionThe 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

DeductionTariana (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 perceptionThe 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)

'Waja 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 evidentialityC: Reportativityp: Inferenceep: Deductione: Event Perception

26

Distinguishing featuresCombinability with behavioural illocutions

Hup (Epps 2008: 655-656)yɔ-ɔ=mah.fear-DYN=REP‘(He’s) scared, he says.’

næn=mah!come=REP‘Come here, she said!’

27

Distinguishing featuresInteraction 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



Evidentiality reportativity

Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect

Tense absolute tense relative tenseEvidentiality inference deduction event

perceptionMood subjective

epistemicmodality




30


discourse act




Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect



epistemicmodality




31


discourse act




Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect



epistemicmodality




32


discourse act




Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect



epistemicmodality




33


discourse act




Representatio-

nal Level




phasalaspect



epistemicmodality




34

ComparisonSource Classification of evidential categoriesThis paper Representational Interpersonal

Event Perception Deduction Inference ReportativityWillett (1988) Direct Indirect

Inferring ReportedDe Haan (1998) Direct Indirect

Inferential QuotativePlungian (2010) Direct Indirect

Inferential Presumptive ReportativeSan Roque & Loughnane (2012)

Direct IndirectResults Reasoning Reported

3. The co-existence of evidential subcategories

36

PredictionThere 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 + + + + 121b + + + - 22a + + – + 92b + + – – 03a + – – + 43b + – – – 04a – – – + 74b – – – – 30Total 64

38



Eventperception

Deduction Inference

Reportativity

1 + + + (+) 142 + + – (+) 93 + – – (+) 44 – – – (+) 37Total 64

39



Eventperception

Deduction Inference

Reportativity

* - + + (+) 0* + - + (+) 0* - – + (+) 0* – + – (+) 0Total 0

40

DesanoDesano (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:Bɨʔɨ 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-bĩ.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 InterpersonalEvidential Event

perceptionDeduction Inference Reportativity

# lgs with subdistinctions

10 3 0 5

43

ComparisonWillett (1988)

attested ⊂ reported ⊂ inferring

44

ComparisonDe Haan (1998)

visual ⊂ non-visual ⊂ inferential ⊂ quotative

45

ComparisonFaller (2002)

4. The co-occurrence of evidential subcategories

47

PredictionIf 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)

EvidentialityLanguage

Event Perception

Deduction Inference Reportativity

Yuhup + +

Hup + +

Huariapano, Hup, Jara-wara, Mamaindê,

Sabanê+ +

Karo + +

Wanano + +

Hup, Sabanê , Wanano + +

50

Reportative + InferenceYuhup (Bozzi 2002:183) ɟidɘh ɟàbmcɨ dí bàh3.PL dance INFER REP‘It seems they dance, it is said.’

51

Reportative + DeductionHup (Epps 2008: 658)Hup pã=cud=mahperson NEG.EX=DED=REP‘There was apparently nobody there,

it’s said.’

52

Reportative + Event PerceptionSabanê (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-~su-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 PerceptionWanano (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.’

5. Conclusions

57

ConclusionsA 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

ConclusionsOur 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

Documents

Transcript of Four types of evidentiality