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
↑
Representational Level
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
> Illocution > Communicated Content
∨
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
> Episode > State-of-Affairs
> Situational Concept
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
> Illocution > Communicated Content
∨
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
> Episode > State-of-Affairs
> Situational Concept
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
> Illocution > Communicated Content
∨
Representational Level
Proposi-tion
> Episode > State-of-Affairs
> Situational Concept
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
> 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)
'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
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 tenseEvidentiality inference deduction event
perceptionMood subjective
epistemicmodality
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 tenseEvidentiality inference deduction event
perceptionMood subjective
epistemicmodality
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 tenseEvidentiality inference deduction event
perceptionMood subjective
epistemicmodality
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 tenseEvidentiality inference deduction event
perceptionMood subjective
epistemicmodality
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 tenseEvidentiality inference deduction event
perceptionMood subjective
epistemicmodality
objectiveepistemicmodality
event-oriented modality
participant-orientedmodality
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
Results (qualitative)Level Representational Interpersonal # lgs in
sampleEvidentialsystem
Eventperception
Deduction Inference
Reportativity
1 + + + (+) 142 + + – (+) 93 + – – (+) 44 – – – (+) 37Total 64
39
Results (qualitative)Level Representational Interpersonal # lgs in
sampleEvidentialsystem
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
Top Related