Four types of evidentiality
Kees Hengeveld
Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher
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
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
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
1. Layering in Functional
Discourse Grammar
5
Layering
Hidatsa (Matthews 1965)
Wíra i 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
Layers
Interpersonal
Level
Discourse
Act
>
Illocution
>
Communicated
Content
∨
Representational
Level
Proposi
-tion
>
Episode
>
State-ofAffairs
>
Situational
Concept
7
TMA categories
Interpersonal
Level
discourse act
illocution
Mood
basic illocution
Representatio- propositional
nal Level
Content
episode
Aspect
Tense
Mood
subjective
epistemic
modality
communicated
content
state-of-affairs
situational
concept
event
quantification
phasal
aspect
absolute tense
relative tense
objective
epistemic
modality
event-oriented
modality
participantoriented
modality
8
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
9
Grammaticalization
Interpersonal
Level
Discourse
Act
←
Illocution
←
Communicated
Content
↑
Representational
Level
Proposi
-tion
←
Episode
←
State-ofAffairs
←
Situational
Concept
10
2. Evidentiality in
Functional Discourse
Grammar
Four types of evidentiality
Reportativity
Inference
Deduction
Event Perception
12
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.
13
Reportativity
Interpersonal
Level
Discourse
Act
>
Illocution
>
Communicated
Content
∨
Representational
Level
Proposi
-tion
>
Episode
>
State-ofAffairs
>
Situational
Concept
14
Reportativity
Lakondê (Telles & Wetzels 2006: 240)
Ta'wḛn 'teh-'naw ta-'a̰jh-wi-setaw-'tãn’.
woods path-LOC DIR-walk-1.DU-REP-IMPF
‘Let’s walk to the path in the woods, someone
told me.’
15
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.
16
Inference
Interpersonal
Level
Discourse
Act
>
Illocution
>
Communicated
Content
∨
Representational
Level
Proposi
-tion
>
Episode
>
State-ofAffairs
>
Situational
Concept
17
Inference
Karo (Gabas 2004: 269)
Aʔ=ket-t
memã.
3.SG=sleep-IND INFER
‘I suppose he is sleeping.’
18
Deduction
The speaker deduces the information he/she
presents from perceptual evidence.
Deduction necessarily involves two states-ofaffairs: 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.
19
Deduction
Interpersonal
Level
Discourse
Act
>
Illocution
>
Communicated
Content
∨
Representational
Level
Proposi
-tion
>
Episode
>
State-ofAffairs
>
Situational
Concept
20
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).’
21
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 stateof-affairs that is directly perceived.
22
Event perception
Interpersonal
Level
Discourse
Act
>
Illocution
>
Communicated
Content
∨
Representational
Level
Proposi
-tion
>
Episode
>
State-ofAffairs
>
Situational
Concept
23
Event perception
Lakondê (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)
'Wa̰ja
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)’
24
Four types of evidentiality
C: Reportativity
p: Inference
ep: Deduction
e: Event Perception
25
Distinguishing features
Combinability with behavioural illocutions
Hup (Epps 2008: 655-656)
yɔ́-ɔ=
́ mah.
fear-DYN=REP
‘(He’s) scared, he says.’
nǽn=mah!
come=REP
‘Come here, she said!’
26
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
27
Distinguishing features
Criterion Combines with
Evidential
behavioural
Subcategory
illocutions
Takes absolute
tense within its
scope
Takes relative
tense within its
scope
Reportativity
+
+
+
Inference
-
+
+
Deduction
-
-
+
Event Perception
-
-
-
28
Evidentiality in FDG
Interpersonal
Level
discourse act
Mood
illocution
communicated
content
basic illocution
Evidentiality
reportativity
Representatio- propositional
nal Level
Content
episode
Aspect
Tense
state-of-affairs
situational
concept
event
quantification
phasal
aspect
absolute tense
relative tense
Evidentiality
inference
deduction
event
perception
Mood
subjective
epistemic
modality
objective
epistemic
modality
event-oriented
modality
participantoriented
modality
29
Evidentiality in FDG
Interpersonal
Level
discourse act
Mood
illocution
communicated
content
basic illocution
Evidentiality
reportativity
Representatio- propositional
nal Level
Content
episode
Aspect
Tense
state-of-affairs
situational
concept
event
quantification
phasal
aspect
absolute tense
relative tense
Evidentiality
inference
deduction
event
perception
Mood
subjective
epistemic
modality
objective
epistemic
modality
event-oriented
modality
participantoriented
modality
30
Evidentiality in FDG
Interpersonal
Level
discourse act
Mood
illocution
communicated
content
basic illocution
Evidentiality
reportativity
Representatio- propositional
nal Level
Content
episode
Aspect
Tense
state-of-affairs
situational
concept
event
quantification
phasal
aspect
absolute tense
relative tense
Evidentiality
inference
deduction
event
perception
Mood
subjective
epistemic
modality
objective
epistemic
modality
event-oriented
modality
participantoriented
modality
31
Evidentiality in FDG
Interpersonal
Level
discourse act
Mood
illocution
communicated
content
basic illocution
Evidentiality
reportativity
Representatio- propositional
nal Level
Content
episode
Aspect
Tense
state-of-affairs
situational
concept
event
quantification
phasal
aspect
absolute tense
relative tense
Evidentiality
inference
deduction
event
perception
Mood
subjective
epistemic
modality
objective
epistemic
modality
event-oriented
modality
participantoriented
modality
32
Evidentiality in FDG
Interpersonal
Level
discourse act
Mood
illocution
communicated
content
basic illocution
Evidentiality
reportativity
Representatio- propositional
nal Level
Content
episode
Aspect
Tense
state-of-affairs
situational
concept
event
quantification
phasal
aspect
absolute tense
relative tense
Evidentiality
inference
deduction
event
perception
Mood
subjective
epistemic
modality
objective
epistemic
modality
event-oriented
modality
participantoriented
modality
33
Comparison
Source
Classification of evidential categories
This paper
Representational
Event Perception
Willett (1988)
Deduction
Interpersonal
Inference
Direct
Indirect
Inferring
De Haan (1998)
Direct
Reported
Indirect
Inferential
Plungian (2010)
Direct
Quotative
Indirect
Inferential
San Roque &
Loughnane (2012)
Reportativity
Direct
Presumptive
Reportative
Indirect
Results
Reasoning
Reported
34
3. The co-existence of
evidential subcategories
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
36
Results (qualitative)
Level
Event
perception
Deduction
Inference
Reportativity
# lgs in
sample
1a
+
+
+
+
12
1b
+
+
+
-
2
2a
+
+
–
+
9
2b
+
+
–
–
0
3a
+
–
–
+
4
3b
+
–
–
–
0
4a
–
–
–
+
7
4b
–
–
–
–
30
Evidential
system
Total
Representational
Interpersonal
64
37
Results (qualitative)
Level
Event
perception
Deduction
Inference
Reportativity
# lgs in
sample
1
+
+
+
(+)
14
2
+
+
–
(+)
9
3
+
–
–
(+)
4
4
–
–
–
(+)
37
Evidential
system
Total
Representational
Interpersonal
64
38
Results (qualitative)
Level
Event
perception
Deduction
Inference
Reportativity
# lgs in
sample
*
-
+
+
(+)
0
*
+
-
+
(+)
0
*
-
–
+
(+)
0
*
–
+
–
(+)
0
Evidential
system
Total
Representational
Interpersonal
0
39
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:
Bɨʔɨ yoaro-ge aʔhra-y-a.
2.SG far-LOC come-DED-NON3
‘You have come a long way (it appears).’
40
Desano
Desano (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.’
41
Results (quantitative)
Level
Evidential
# lgs with
subdistinctions
Representational
Interpersonal
Event
perception
Deduction
Inference
Reportativity
10
3
0
5
42
Comparison
Willett (1988)
attested ⊂ reported ⊂ inferring
43
Comparison
De Haan (1998)
visual ⊂ non-visual ⊂ inferential ⊂
quotative
44
Comparison
Faller (2002)
45
4. The co-occurrence of
evidential subcategories
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 cooccur in a single expression.
47
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.
48
Co-occurrence (2
subcategories)
Language
Evidentiality
Event
Perception
Deduction
Yuhup
Hup
Huariapano, Hup, Jarawara, Mamaindê, Sabanê
Inference
Reportativity
+
+
+
+
+
Karo
+
+
Wanano
+
Hup, Sabanê , Wanano
+
+
+
+
49
Reportative + Inference
Yuhup (Bozzi 2002:183)
ɟ̱ idɘ̌h
ɟbbmcɨ ́
̠̄̄dí
bbh
3.PL
dance
INFER
REP
‘It seems they dance, it is said.’
50
Reportative + Deduction
Hup (Epps 2008: 658)
Hup
pã̌=cud=mah
person NEG.EX=DED=REP
‘There was apparently nobody there, it’s
said.’
51
Reportative + Event Perception
Sabanê (Araújo 2004: 54)
waylypi.maysili-ka kan-n-tiaka-dana
cat.younglings-OBJ die-VS-REP-PERC
‘Somebody said that the kitten died.’
52
Inference + Deduction
Karo (Gabas 1999: 277)
péŋ
aʔ=wĩ-n
aket memã
white.man 3.SG=kill-IND DED INFER
‘The white man must have supposedly
killed it/him.’
53
Inference + Event Perception
Wanano (Stenzel 2004: 103)
Bora-~su̵-ka
wa’a-ro
fall.down-COMPL-AFFEC go-NMZR
koa-ta-a.
PERC.NONVIS-come-INFER.PF
‘He fell right down.’
54
Deduction + Event Perception
Wanano (Stenzel 2004:358)
a'yoo
tipa-wa-ri
Oh!
be.flat-become-NMZR.DED
hi-ra
COP-PERC.VIS.IMPF.NON1
‘Oh! This one’s (been) flattened.’
55
5. Conclusions
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.
57
Conclusions
Our classification and hierarchy make
correct predictions about the coexistence 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.
58
This presentation is available at
www.keeshengeveld.nl
59
Descargar

Semantic Change and Grammaticalization in FDG