OXFORD BIBLIOGRAPHIES IN LINGUISTICS
“EVIDENTIALS”
by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
© Oxford University Press, Inc.
Not for distribution. For permissions, please email OxfordBibliographies@oup.com.
INTRODUCTION
MONOGRAPHS
ARTICLES
EDITED COLLECTIONS
EXTENSIONS OF NONEVIDENTIAL CATEGORIES
MEANINGS
TENSE, ASPECT, AND MOOD
EPISTEMIC MODALITY
PERSON MARKING
MEANINGS IN COMPLEMENTATION
REPORTED SPEECH AND INFORMATION SOURCE
MIRATIVITY
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
CONTACT-INDUCED CHANGE
GRAMMATICALIZATION OF A QUOTATIVE MARKER IN SPANISH VARIETIES
AREAL FEATURES
CHILD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
INFORMATION SOURCES AND CULTURAL STEREOTYPES
INDIVIDUAL AREAS, LANGUAGES, AND FAMILIES
Balkan Languages
Further Indo-European Languages
Turkic Languages
Uralic Languages
Languages of the Caucasus
Tibeto-Burman Languages
North American Indian Languages
Individual Studies
Mesoamerican Languages
Languages of the Andes
Aymara
Quechua
Lowland Amazonian Languages
Arawak Languages
Carib Languages
Panoan Languages
Tucanoan Languages
Tupí-Guaraní Languages
Small Language Families and Isolates
African Languages
Australian Aboriginal Languages
Pacific Languages
Siberian Languages
Japanese
Korean
Introduction
Evidentiality is a grammatical category with source of information as its primary
meaning—whether the speaker saw the event happen, did not see it but heard it, made an
inference based on general knowledge or visual traces, or was told about it. Languages
may distinguish firsthand and nonfirsthand information or have a special marker just for
reported evidentiality. In larger evidential systems, firsthand or visual evidential may
contrast with nonvisual, inferred, assumed, and reported. Evidentiality is a verbal
category in its own right. It does not bear any straightforward relationship to the
expression of the speaker’s responsibility or attitude toward the statement. Neither is
evidentiality a subcategory of modality or a tense. Nonevidential categories, including
perfect aspect, past tense, conditional, and other modalities and complementation devices,
can develop meanings related to information source. French linguists employ the term
“mediative.” Scholars of Quechua use the term “validational” or “verificational.”
Monographs
The notion of evidentiality was introduced into general linguistics by Jakobson 1957.
Aikhenvald 2004 is the only monograph, as of 2011, dealing exclusively with the
category of evidentiality. There are numerous articles dealing with various meanings of
evidentials. A number of monographs address epistemic and other modalities and
pragmatic notions involving responsibility, control, and authority, with marginal
relevance to evidentiality.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
A comprehensive overview of grammatical evidentiality in a cross-linguistic
perspective based on the author’s own fieldwork and on examination of grammars
of more than five hundred languages. Deals with the expression, semantics, and
pragmatics of evidential systems across the world; their correlations with other
categories, including mirativity; their origins and decay; and child language
acquisition. Paperback edition with revisions published 2006 (Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press).
Jakobson, Roman O. 1957. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Introduces the general notion of evidentiality as a cover term for grammaticalized
marking of information source.
Articles
Franz Boas was the first scholar explicitly to pinpoint the existence of a grammatical
category reflecting the information source of a speaker, based on his work on North
American Indian languages (Boas 1938). Roman Jakobson was the first scholar to use the
term “evidential” and to provide the classical definition (Jakobson 1957, cited in
Monographs). Comrie 2000 (cited in Meanings) offers a brief survey of small evidential
systems found in Eurasia. Willett 1988 and Kozintseva 1994 provide some crosslinguistic information on evidentiality, now outdated. Aikhenvald 2004 and Joseph 2003
formulate cross-linguistic foundations for typology of evidentiality. Some cross-linguistic
information is in De Haan 2005.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality: Problems and challenges. In Linguistics
today: Facing a greater challenge. Edited by Piet van Sterkenbourg, 1–29. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
A cross-linguistic account of systems of evidentials, with special focus on
languages that mark information source more than once in a clause.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Information source and evidentiality: What can we
conclude? Rivista di Linguistica 19.1: 207–227.
A discussion of various means of grammatical and lexical expression of
information source, including grammatical evidentials, modal verbs,
parentheticals, and lexical items.
Boas, Franz. 1938. Language. In General anthropology. Edited by Franz Boas, 124–145.
Boston and New York: D. C. Heath.
A pioneering work explicitly formulating the notion of obligatory marking of
information source in North American Indian languages.
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2005. Coding of evidentiality. In World atlas of language
structures. Edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard
Comrie, 318–321. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
A somewhat limited summary of the way evidentiality is expressed in some
languages. This is based on an artificially limited sample and should be used with
caution.
Joseph, Brian D. 2003. Evidentials: Summation, questions, prospects. In Studies in
evidentiality. Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 307–327.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
This paper discusses the possibilities of expressing information source with means
other than grammatical evidentials, focusing on evidential-like distinctions in
Indo-European languages (also see Further Indo-European Languages).
Kozintseva, Natalya. 1994. Kategorija evidentsial’nosti (problemy tipologicheskogo
analiza). Voprosy Jazykoznanija 3:92–104.
An early but insightful analysis of evidential systems, with a special focus on
reported and visual/nonvisual distinctions found in the languages of Eurasia.
Squartini, Mario. 2007. Evidentiality between lexicon and grammar. Rivista di
Linguistica 19.1: 1–7.
A concise account of the lexical expressions of information source and the ways
grammatical means, such as modalities, moods, and modal verbs, can be extended
to cover evidential-like meanings, arguing for the lack of categorical distinction
between lexical and grammatical evidentiality.
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality.
Studies in Language 12:51–97.
The first attempt at a cross-linguistic analysis of grammatical systems of
evidentiality, offering generalizations based on limited data. Some have since then
been proved wrong. In general, this is outdated. Among inconsistencies one finds
are the differences between Willett’s own analysis of Cora in this source and in
Willett 1991 (cited in Mesoamerican Languages).
Edited Collections
Chafe and Nichols 1986 covers a selection of North American, South American, and
Tibeto-Burman languages. Guentchéva 1996 contains twenty papers addressing small
systems in Indo-European, Turkish, and Uralic and also modality in a variety of
languages. Johanson and Utas 2000 (cited in Turkic Languages) contains seven papers on
small evidentiality systems in Turkic languages, five on Iranian languages, and a further
eight on small evidential systems and semantically related modal marking in TibetoBurman, Caucasian, and Uralic languages (see Tibeto-Burman Languages, Languages of
the Caucasus, Uralic Languages). Aikhenvald and Dixon 2003 includes analysis of
evidential systems of different types and sizes from Eurasia, South America, North
America, and the Tibeto-Burman family. Guentchéva 2007 contains eighteen papers
discussing fourteen languages from South America and Mesoamerica and four from the
Caucasus. Aikhenvald 2007 contains analytic papers on evidentials and mirativity in six
Tibeto-Burman languages, with an introduction by the editor detailing advances in the
typology of evidentials. Peterson and Sauerland 2010 focuses on evidentials and other
verbal categories related to information source in a selection of languages, including
Japanese, English, and Tagalog. Wiemer and Stathi 2010 outlines foundations for the
analysis of information source marking in selected European languages.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., ed. 2007. Special issue: Evidentiality. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 30.2.
A collection of six papers focusing on newly discovered systems of evidentials in
Tibeto-Burman languages, with a typological introduction.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and R. M. W. Dixon, eds. 2003. Studies in evidentiality.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A collection of fourteen chapters on a variety of evidential systems in twelve
languages cast in a common framework (including Abkhaz, Western Apache,
Eastern Pomo, Tariana, Jarawara, Macedonian and Albanian, Yukaghir, Turkic,
and West Greenlandic), with a typological survey by Aikhenvald and a conclusion
by Brian D. Joseph (see Joseph 2003, cited in Articles).
Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols, eds. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding
of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
A pioneering, influential collection of eighteen chapters covering evidential
systems in North and South American languages, in the Balkan languages, in
Tibeto-Burman languages (Sherpa, Akha, and Tibetan), and in Japanese, with an
additional focus on epistemic meanings in English and other languages.
Ekberg, Lena B., and C. Paradis, eds. 2009. Special issue: Evidentiality in language and
cognition. Functions of Language 16.1.
A collection of five papers on epistemic markers and their extension into
expressing information source, based on data from European languages.
Guentchéva, Zlatka, ed. 1996. L’énonciation médiatisée. Vol. 1. Louvain, Belgium:
Peeters.
First of an important series of two volumes, this contains twenty papers
addressing small systems in Indo-European, North American, and Turkish
languages, with a further comprehensive survey of Uralic and also addressing the
expression of modality in a variety of languages.
Guentchéva, Zlatka, ed. 2007. L’énonciation médiatisée II. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.
Second in an important series of two volumes. This contains eighteen papers
discussing evidentials and semantically similar categories in fourteen languages
from South America and Mesoamerica and four from the Caucasus.
Peterson,Tyler, and Uli Sauerland, eds. 2010. Evidence from evidentials. Univ. of British
Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 28. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia.
A selection of papers discussing epistemic modalities, polarity, the pragmatics of
evidentials, and the use of other verbal categories related to information source in
a selection of languages, including Japanese, Yoruba, English, and Tagalog.
Squartini, Mario, ed. 2007. Special issue: Evidentiality between lexicon and grammar.
Rivista di Linguistica 19.1.
Papers in this collection focus on the ways information source can be expressed
through lexical and grammatical means, especially in European languages.
Wiemer, Björn, and Katerina Stathi, eds. 2010. Special issue: Database on evidentiality
markers in European languages. Language Typology and Universals 63.4.
A collection of seven papers with a focus on creation of a database of the
expression of evidential-like meanings in European languages and modal
meanings that can overlap with information source.
Extensions of Nonevidential Categories
A verbal form with no primary evidential meaning can be used to refer to the way
information was acquired as an “evidentiality strategy.” These forms include conditional
mood, participles, nominalizations, perfects, and perfectives (Dendale 1993, Dendale and
Van Bogaert 2007, Tasmovski and Dendale 1994, Liddicoat 1997). Merlan 1981 focuses
on irrealis in speech reports. Infinitives and participles are discussed in Wälchli 2000 and
Wiemer 1998. Typical meanings cover information acquired through inference or speech
report, with overtones of uncertainty and disbelief, as addressed in some detail in
Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in Monographs); see also Tatevosov 2001a and Tatevosov 2001b,
cited in Languages of the Caucasus. Lexical items and modal verbs can also be used to
express information source (Squartini 2007, Aikhenvald 2007, both cited in Articles).
Dendale, Patrick. 1993. Le conditionnel de l’information incertaine: Marqueur modal ou
marqueur évidentiel? In Proceedings of the XXe Congrès International de Linguistique et
Philologie Romanes, Tome I, Section I; La phrase. Edited by Gerold Hilty, 165–177.
Tübingen, Germany: Francke.
Semantic and pragmatic analysis of the uses of the conditional in French to refer
to information one does not vouch for.
Dendale, Patrick, and Julie Van Bogaert. 2007. A semantic description of French lexical
evidential markers and the classification of evidentials. Rivista di Linguistica 19.1: 65–
89.
Analysis of lexical means used for various information sources in French.
Liddicoat, Anthony J. 1997. The function of the conditional in French scientific writing.
Linguistics 35:767–780.
A concise analysis of evidential overtones of the French conditional, used for
inferences and reported information one does not vouch for.
Merlan, Francesca. 1981. Some functional relations among subordination, mood, aspect,
and focus in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1:175–210.
A pioneering study addressing evidential-like meaning of irrealis, among other
issues.
Tasmovski, Liliane, and Patrick Dendale. 1994. Pouvoir: Un marqueur d’évidentialité.
Langue Française 102:41–55.
Discussion of a modal verb in French that can be used to refer to uncertain and
unreliable information.
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2000. Infinite predication as marker of evidentiality and modality in
the languages of the Baltic region. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 53:186–
210.
Infinitive as a predicate in a number of genetically unrelated languages of the
Baltic area may develop overtones to do with inference and unreliable
information. This is a pioneering attempt at an areal study of an evidentiality
strategy.
Wiemer, Björn. 1998. Pragmatical inferences at the threshold to grammaticalization: The
case of Lithuanian predicative participles and their functions. Linguistica Baltica 7:229–
243.
A discussion of the ways a participle in Lithuanian can be used to express
inference and may be considered to be on its way toward developing into an
evidential.
Meanings
The exact meaning of each evidential varies depending on the system. A visual evidential
may refer to something seen, while a nonvisual one typically refers to hearing, smelling,
touching, or feeling something. A general nonfirsthand evidential covers all kinds of
information sources available to the speaker. These issues are also addressed in chapter 5
of Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in Monographs). Comrie 2000 and Hagège 1995 offer general
analyses of the semantics of small systems. De Haan 2001 and De Haan 2005 discuss
individual terms. Curnow 2003 surveys meaning overtones (see also Tasmovski and
Dendale 1994, cited in Extensions of Nonevidential Categories).
Comrie, Bernard. 2000. Evidentials: Semantics and history. In Evidentials: Turkic,
Iranian, and neighbouring languages. Edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 1–12.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
A brief introduction to small evidentiality systems and their correlations with
other categories, especially perfect aspect, based on languages of Eurasia.
Curnow, Timothy J. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in
Language 27:39–60.
Account of semantic overtones of nonvisual, inferential, and reported evidential to
do with lack of control and nonvolitionality on the part of the speaker.
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2001. The cognitive basis of visual evidentials. In Conceptual and
discourse factors in linguistic structure. Edited by Alan Cienki, Barbara J. Luka, and
Michael B. Smith, 91–106. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and
Information.
An overview of the semantic grounds a visual evidential may cover (from vision
to general knowledge), based on a limited number of languages.
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2005. Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. In World atlas of
language structures. Edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and
Bernard Comrie, 314–317. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
A partial summary of meaning distinctions within evidential and epistemic
systems, based on a limited number of languages. Contains factual errors and does
not take into account much of the existing literature.
Dendale, Patrick, and L. Tasmovski. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and related
notions. Journal of Pragmatics 33:339–348.
A brief survey of meanings of reported and inferred evidentials in the context of
extensions of nonevidential categories to cover some meanings related to
information source and of modal categories.
Hagège, Claude. 1995. Le rôle des médiaphoriques dans la langue et dans le discours.
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 90:1–19.
A survey of meanings and use of indirect evidentials, covering reported and
inferential evidentials.
Tense, Aspect, and Mood
Evidentials interrelate with tense, aspect, and mood. The reported evidential tends to be
the only one found in imperatives (Aikhenvald 2010). The inferential evidential tends to
be associated with past tense, perfective aspect, and perfect in general. Most evidentials
tend to be distinguished in past tense and declarative mood (Aikhenvald and Dixon 1998,
Bhat 1999). Also see chapter 8 of Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in Monographs).
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press.
Section 4.2.4 of chapter 4 provides an exhaustive overview of evidentials’ use in
commands.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and R. M. W. Dixon. 1998. Dependencies between
grammatical systems. Language 74:56–80.
Dependencies in the cross-linguistic expression of evidentials, negation, aspect,
tense, mood, and person. Evidentiality and other distinctions may get neutralized
in negative clauses.
Bhat, D. N. Shankara. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
This book contains some discussion of how evidential distinctions can be
expressed depending on tense and aspect of the clause in some languages of India.
Epistemic Modality
Meanings of inference and assumption are common to evidentials and to modalities
discussed in Boye 2010. The existence of epistemic extensions of evidentials (which is
far from universal) has led some scholars (see, e.g., Palmer 1986 and van der Auwera and
Plungian 1998) to mix together evidentiality and epistemic modality. De Haan 1997 and
De Haan 1999 draw boundaries between evidentiality and modality. Also see chapter 8 of
Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in Monographs) and other sources in Chafe and Nichols 1986
and Aikhenvald and Dixon 2003 (both cited in Edited Collections). Modal extensions of
evidentials are also linked to notions of responsibility and authority in Fox 2001, are
linked with relevance in Ifantidou 2001, and are connected with epistemological stance
and viewpoint in Mushin 2001. Evidentiality-related modal meanings in Japanese are
addressed in Narrog 2009.
Boye, Kaspar. 2010. Epistemic meaning: A cross-linguistic and cognitive study. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
A survey of the epistemic meanings (based primarily on European languages) and
discussion of their overlap with evidential meanings of inference and assumption.
De Haan, Ferdinand. 1997. The interaction of modality and negation: A typological
study. New York: Garland.
A detailed study of the interrelation between negation and modality, with a
discussion of epistemic meanings that involve speaker’s attitude to the
information source.
De Haan, Ferdinand. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries.
Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18:83–102.
This seminal paper conclusively demonstrates that evidentiality is different from
epistemic and other modalities in its semantics and use.
Fox, Barbara. 2001. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English
conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11:167–192.
A discussion of the expression of responsibility and authority in American
English. The author links these concepts to the notion of evidentiality, adopting a
broad view of evidentiality as a category linked to epistemic modality.
Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evidentiality is understood as encompassing modality and numerous unrelated
pragmatic notions, including relevance (which is not defined). The focus of the
study is means of expressing reported information in Modern Greek and their
epistemic overtones of unreliability.
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A misguided approach to evidentiality as part of epistemic modality, based on
limited work with partial speakers of Serbian and Croatian in Melbourne,
Australia, and limited data on Japanese, with little attention to the literature.
Narrog, Heiko. 2007. Modality and grammaticalization in Japanese. Journal of Historical
Pragmatics 8:269–294.
Analysis of epistemic meanings in Japanese and their overlap with inference and
assumption (typical evidential categories).
Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Modality in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
An in-depth discussion of modal meanings and their expression in Japanese, with
an analysis of some evidential-like meanings of epistemic modals.
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A comprehensive though somewhat outdated overview of mood and various
modalities.
van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. On modality’s semantic map.
Linguistic Typology 2:79–124.
A useful, though somewhat outdated, survey of modal meanings, based primarily
on European languages.
Person Marking
Evidentiality often reflects the information source of the speaker. If a nonvisual,
inferential, or reported evidential is used with a first-person subject, this may imply an
involuntary or uncontrolled event (Curnow 2003, cited in Meanings; see also chapters 4
and 7 of Aikhenvald 2004, cited in Monographs). Conjunct-disjunct person marking
(found in Barbacoan and some Tibeto-Burman languages [see Tibeto-Burman
Languages]) may extend to cover evidential-like meanings of inference associated with
unexpected information and mirativity (Curnow 2002a, Curnow 2002b, Dickinson 2000,
DeLancey 1992; compare DeLancey 1997, cited in Mirativity). Bickel 2000 addresses
evidential choices for different persons in Himalayan languages. Guentchéva, et al. 1994
focuses on person overtones in small systems of evidentials.
Bickel, Baltasar. 2000. Introduction: Person and evidence in Himalayan languages.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23:1–11.
A state-of-the-art survey of correlations among person of the speaker,
evidentiality, and epistemic meanings in a selection of Himalayan languages.
Curnow, Timothy J. 2002a. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40:611–
627.
A comprehensive description of conjunct-disjunct person marking in a previously
undescribed Barbacoan language from Colombia. The same marker is used for
first person in statements and second person in questions. The use of person
markers correlates with inference and unexpected information, “mirativity” (see
Mirativity).
Curnow, Timothy J. 2002b. Conjunct/disjunct systems in Barbacoan languages. Santa
Barbara Papers in Linguistics 11:3–12.
A comprehensive overview of conjunct-disjunct person marking systems in
Barbacoan languages and their extensions to cover evidential-type meanings.
Curnow, Timothy J. 2003. Types of interaction between evidentials and first person
subjects. Anthropological Linguistics 44:178–196.
An in-depth, state-of-the-art discussion of semantic overtones of lack of control
and volitionality for nonvisual, nonfirsthand, and reported evidentials with firstperson subjects.
DeLancey, Scott. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct-disjunct pattern in TibetoBurman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25:39–62.
A classic in the field. Accounts for the semantics and history of conjunct-disjunct
marking in Tibeto-Burman languages (see Tibeto-Burman Languages).
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24:379–421.
A comprehensive fieldwork-based account of evidentiality, mirativity (see
Mirativity), and conjunct-disjunct marking in Tsafiki, a Barbacoan language from
Ecuador. Conjunct-disjunct person marking is reminiscent of that described in
DeLancey 1992 and has mirative and inferential overtones.
Guentchéva, Zlatka, Anaid Donabédian, M. Meydan, and R. Camus. 1994. Interactions
entre le médiatif et la personne. Faits de langues 3:139–148.
An overview of interactions between person of the speaker and evidentials in
small evidentiality systems, with a focus on languages of Europe and Asia.
Meanings in Complementation
The choice of a complement clause marker or of complementation strategy may correlate
with the way information was acquired, for instance, through a speech report (I heard
that France beat Argentina) or through hearing (I heard France beating Argentina),
discussed in Barentsen 1996 for Russian, Akatsuka 1978 for Japanese, Dixon 1995 and
Kirsner and Thompson 1978 for English, Frajzyngier and Jasperson 1991 for English and
Chadic languages, and Givón and Kimenyi 1974 for Kinyarwanda (a summary is in
chapter 4 of Aikhenvald 2004, cited in Monographs).
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1978. Epistemology and Japanese syntax: Complementizer choice. In
Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Edited
by D. Farkas, W. Jacobsen, and K. Todrys, 272–284. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society.
The choice of a complementizer in Japanese depends on the speaker’s attitude
toward information and on the information source.
Barentsen, Adrian. 1996. Shifting points of orientation in Modern Russian: Tense
selection in “reported perception.” In Reported speech: Forms and functions of the verb.
Edited by T. A. J. M. Janssen and W. van der Wurff, 15–55. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
The choice of a complementizer with verbs of perception in Russian depends on
the information source of the speaker.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1995. Complement clauses and complementation strategies. In
Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons. Edited by F. R. Palmer,
175–220. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Examines the choice between a that complement clause and complementation
strategies in English; the choice is linked to the source of information of the
speaker.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and R. Jasperson. 1991. That clauses and other complements.
Lingua 83:133–153.
An account of marking of complementation and its correlation to information
source, based primarily on English.
Givón, Talmy, and A. Kimenyi. 1974. Truth, belief, and doubt in Kinyarwanda. Studies
in African Linguistics, supp. 5:95–113.
A study of expression of epistemic meanings, including assumption and belief, in
Kinyarwanda, a Bantu language, with a special focus on correlations between the
choice of complementizer and the information source.
Kirsner, R. S., and S. A. Thompson. 1978. The role of pragmatic inference in semantics:
A study of sensory verb complements in English. Glossa 10:200–240.
An investigation of complements of sensory verbs in English, with a discussion of
how they may distinguish various information sources.
Reported Speech and Information Source
Speech reports (that is, something someone else has said that is being repeated) are
discussed in Coulmas 1986, Güldemann and von Roncador 2002, and Janssen and van
der Wurff 1996. They can be manipulated to express attitude toward information and
correlate with marking of information source (that is, a reported or a quotative
evidential). Grammaticalization of report verbs is discussed in Klamer 2000 and Saxena
1988 and further extensions in Munro 1978.
Coulmas, Florian, ed. 1986. Direct and indirect speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
A useful collection of papers dealing with speech reports and reported speech in
general in a variety of languages from Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America.
Güldemann, Tom, and Manfred von Roncador, eds. 2002. Reported discourse: A meeting
ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A collection of papers addressing varied perspectives on reported discourse and
speech reports and their marking, semantics, and pragmatics, dealing with
languages from Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Janssen, T. A. J. M., and W. van der Wurff, eds. 1996. Reported speech: Forms and
functions of the verb. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A collection of papers focusing on the form of the verb in reported speech and its
overtones, including the use of modal verb forms to express a speech report (as is
the case in German).
Klamer, M. A. F. 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers.
Lingua 110:69–98.
A detailed investigation of grammaticalization of speech report verbs in Western
Austronesian languages and their development into quotative evidentials and
complementizers.
Munro, Pamela. 1978. Chemehuevi “say” and the Uto-Aztecan quotative pattern. In
Selected papers from the 14th Great Basin Anthropological Conference. Edited by
Donald R. Tuohy, 149–171. Socorro, NM: Ballena.
A classic study of speech reports and quotative and reported markers in UtoAztecan languages.
Saxena, Anju. 1988. On syntactic convergence: The case of the verb “say” in TibetoBurman. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society: February 13–15, 1988; General Session and Parasession on
Grammaticalization. Edited by Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster,
375–388. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
A seminal investigation of the development of reported and quotative patterns
based on the verb of speech in Tibeto-Burman languages in a genetic and areal
perspective.
Mirativity
Mirativity, defined as grammaticalized surprise and “unprepared mind,” was introduced
by Scott DeLancey (DeLancey 1997, DeLancey 2001); see also Lazard 1999, Lazard
2001 (cited in Historical Development), and chapter 6 of Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in
Monographs). Evidentials often have mirative overtones (DeLancey 1990, Gronemeyer
1997). In many languages mirativity and evidentiality are independent categories (Hein
2007, Grunow-Hårsta 2007, Peterson 2000; see also Adelaar 1997, cited under Quechua;
Watters 2002, cited in Tibeto-Burman Languages; Miller and Gilley 2007, cited in
African Languages). Mirativity may correlate with person marking (see Dickinson 2000,
cited in Person Marking) and with special pronominal forms (Storch 1999).
DeLancey, Scott. 1990. A note on evidentiality in Hare. International Journal of
American Linguistics 56:152–158.
A pioneering description of mirative overtones of an inferred evidential in Hare,
an Athabaskan language.
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information.
Linguistic Typology 1:33–52.
This classic paper provides a definition of mirativity as a new grammatical
category and outlines its possible correlations with other categories, including
evidentiality.
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33:369–
382.
A classic paper containing further elaboration of mirativity and its expression
through means such as evidentials and person markers.
Gronemeyer, Claire. 1997. Evidentiality in Lithuanian. Working Papers, Lund University
Department of Linguistics 46:93–112.
A discussion of an inferential evidential and a reported evidential and its mirative
connotations when used with first-person subject.
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2007. Evidentiality and mirativity in Magar. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 30.2: 151–194.
An in-depth description of evidentiality as a category independent of mirativity in
Magar, a Tibeto-Burman language.
Hein, Veronica. 2007. The mirative and its interplay with evidentiality in the Tibetan
dialect of Tabo (Spiti). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30.2: 195–214.
An in-depth analysis of mirative as an independent grammatical category in a
Tibetan dialect and how evidentials can acquire mirative overtones.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic
Typology 3:91–110.
This seminal paper addresses the ways of distinguishing evidentiality in its varied
guises from mirativity as an independent category.
Peterson, John. 2000. Evidentials, inferentials, and mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 23:13–37.
A comprehensive analysis of the semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in
Nepali and the expression of mirativity.
Storch, Anne. 1999. Das Hone und seine Stellung im Zentral-Jukunoid. Cologne: Köppe.
Hone, a Jukunoid language from Nigeria, has a highly unusual system of mirative
pronouns that express speaker’s unprepared mind and can be linked to inference
as information source.
Historical Development
Evidentials develop out of reinterpretation of other means whose major meaning is not
evidential or from lexical items (see Thurgood 1981, cited in Tibeto-Burman Languages,
and chapter 9 of Aikhenvald 2004, cited in Monographs). Summaries of sources are in
Lazard 2001 and Thurgood 1986. Unusual ways of development are covered in Botne
1995 and Campbell 1991.
Botne, Robert. 1995. The pronominal origin of an evidential. Diachronica 12:201–221.
A pioneering discussion of the origin of an inferential and reported evidential in
Lega, a Bantu language (also see Botne 2003, cited in African Languages).
Campbell, Lyle. 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their
implications. In Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 1. Edited by Elisabeth C.
Traugott and Bernd Heine, 285–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A comprehensive historical-comparative analysis of the development of the
reported evidential in Estonian, based on a reinterpretation of a complement
clause.
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics
33:358–368.
This seminal paper addresses the grammaticalization and development of
evidentiality and its varied extensions, including mirativity (see Mirativity).
Thurgood, Graham. 1986. The nature and origins of the Akha evidentials system. In
Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Edited by Wallace L. Chafe and
Johanna Nichols, 214–222. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
A historical and comparative analysis of the development of the unusual
evidential system in Akha, a Tibeto-Burman language, from a variety of sources.
Contact-Induced Change
The development of evidentials in many languages is due to language contact. Analysis
of mechanisms is in Aikhenvald 2003. Evidentials in contact languages are discussed in
Bunte and Kendall 1981, Bustamante 1991, and Escobar 1997. Calquing evidentials are
approached in Epps 2005, and evidentials as areal features in Chirikba 2008, Friedman
1978, Johanson 1996, and Johanson 1998. Also see papers in Hardman 1981 (cited in
Aymara), Aikhenvald 2002 (cited in Lowland Amazonian Languages), and chapter 9 of
Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in Monographs).
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Mechanisms of change in areal diffusion: New
morphology and language contact. Journal of Linguistics 39:1–29.
Detailed discussion of mechanisms of development of evidentials in Tariana, an
Arawak language, under the influence of East Tucanoan languages.
Bunte, Pamela A., and Martha B. Kendall. 1981. When is an error not an error? Notes on
language contact and the question of interference. Anthropological Linguistics 23:1–7.
This seminal paper addresses the ways contact languages, such as the English
spoken by the Yavapai and Southern Paiute, acquire evidential-like markers to
reflect the categories present in the Indian languages.
Bustamante, Isabel. 1991. El presente perfecto o pretérito compuesto en el español
quiteño. Lexis 15.2: 195–231.
The present perfect form in Spanish spoken in Quito, Ecuador, is developing
evidential meanings under the influence of Quechua.
Chirikba, Viacheslav A. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In From
linguistic areas to areal linguistics. Edited by Pieter Muysken, 25–93. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
An exhaustive study of defining features of the Caucasus as a linguistic area, with
a special focus on small evidential systems as a salient feature.
Epps, Patience. 2005. Areal diffusion and the development of evidentiality: Evidence
from Hup. Studies in Language 29:617–650.
Discussion of the development of evidentials in Hup, a Makú language spoken in
the multilingual linguistic area of the Vaupés River basin, under the influence of
East Tucanoan languages.
Escobar, A. M. 1997. From time to modality in Spanish in contact with Quechua.
Hispanic Linguistics 9:64–99.
A comprehensive study of how Spanish varieties in contact with Quechua in
South America develop evidential distinctions similar to those in Quechua out of
their own resources.
Friedman, Victor A. 1978. On the semantic and morphological influence of Turkish on
Balkan Slavic. In Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society. Edited by D. Farkas, W. Jacobsen, and K. Todrys, 108–118. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
A pioneering study of the influence of Turkish evidentials on Balkan Slavic
languages.
Johanson, Lars. 1996. On Bulgarian and Turkish indirectives. In Areale Kontakte,
Dialekte, Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. Edited by N.
Boretzky, W. Enninger, and T. Stolz, 84–94. Bochum, Germany: Brockmeyer.
A detailed analysis of the influence of Turkish on the emergence of evidential
distinctions in Bulgarian.
Johanson, Lars. 1998. Zum Kontakteinfluss türkischer Indirektive. In Turkologie heute:
Tradition und Perspektive. Edited by N. Demir and E. Taube, 141–150. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Harrassowitz.
A comprehensive and succinct survey of the role of language contact in the
development of the inferential, or indirect, evidential in Turkic.
Grammaticalization of a Quotative Marker in Spanish Varieties
In a number of varieties of South American Spanish and of Portuguese, a quotative
expression dizque or dice(n) que, “they say that,” is on its way to becoming a reported or
an inferential evidential: see Andrade Ciudad 2007 on Peruvian Spanish, Babel 2009 on
Ecuadorian Spanish, Olbertz 2005 on Mexican Spanish, and Travis 2006 on Colombian
Spanish. Kany 1944 is a pioneering study of this development. Also see chapter 4 of
Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in Monographs) and Aikhenvald 2002 (cited in Lowland
Amazonian Languages).
Andrade Ciudad, Luis F. 2007. Usos de dice en castellano andino. MA thesis, Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú.
A master’s thesis investigating the uses of the particle dice in Peruvian Spanish as
an incipient marker of reported evidentiality.
Babel, Anna M. 2009. Dizque, evidentiality, and stance in Valley Spanish. Language in
Society 38:487–511.
Analysis of an incipient reportative marker in a variety of Bolivian Spanish under
the influence of Aymara.
Kany, Charles. 1944. Impersonal dizque and its variants in American Spanish. Hispanic
Review 12:168–177.
A pioneering paper dealing with the distribution of the reportative marker in
South American Spanish.
Olbertz, Hella. 2005. Dizque en el español andino ecuatoriano: Conservador e innovador.
In Encuentros y conflictos: Bilingüismo y contacto de lenguas en el mundo andino.
Edited by Hella Olbertz and Pieter Muysken, 77–94. Madrid: Iberoamericana.
An in-depth account of the use and spread of the reportative marker in Ecuadorian
Spanish.
Olbertz, Hella. 2007. Dizque in Mexican Spanish: The subjectification of reportative
meaning. Rivista di Linguistica 19.1: 151–172.
Deals with the semantic developments and usage of the reportative marker in
Mexican Spanish.
Travis, Catherine. 2006. Dizque: A Colombian evidentiality strategy. Linguistics
44:1269–1297.
This seminal paper contains a corpus-based analysis of the reportative marker in
Colombian Spanish, its status, and its pragmatic overtones.
Areal Features
Evidentiality systems are considered features of numerous linguistic areas and regions.
Aikhenvald 2006 puts forward principles and motivations for contact-induced
distribution of evidentials. Evidentials as areal features within the Balkan area are
discussed in Friedman 2000. Johanson 2002 analyzes evidentials in the contact history of
Turkic. Johanson and Utas 2000 focuses on areality of evidentials in Turkic, Uralic, and a
few other languages. Indirect evidentiality as a Eurasian feature is discussed in Haarmann
1970. Areality in evidentiality in the Baltic area is addressed in Stolz 1991. See also
Balkan Languages, Uralic Languages, North American Indian Languages, and Lowland
Amazonian Languages.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Grammars in contact: A typological perspective. In
Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology. Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
and R. M. W. Dixon, 1–66. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
This introductory chapter discusses, inter alia, evidentials as features of numerous
linguistic areas, including the Vaupés River basin.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and R. M. W. Dixon. 1998. Evidentials and areal typology: A
case study from Amazonia. Language Sciences 20:241–257.
Account of areal distribution of evidential systems in lowland Amazonia.
Friedman, Victor A. 2000. Confirmative/nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan
Romance, and Albanian with additional observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, and
Lak. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighbouring languages. Edited by Lars
Johanson and Bo Utas, 329–366. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
A comprehensive discussion of evidentials as an areal feature of the Balkans.
Haarmann, Harald. 1970. Die indirekte Erlebnisform als grammatische Kategorie: Eine
Eurasische Isoglosse. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
A pioneering though distinctly obsolete account of inferential evidentiality as a
feature spread across Eurasia. Contains interesting data, especially about ancient
languages of Europe and Asia.
Johanson, Lars. 2002. Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. London: Curzon.
Comprehensive analysis of Turkic languages in contact, with a special focus on
evidentiality as a diffusional feature.
Johanson, Lars, and Bo Utas, eds. 2000. Turkic, Iranian, and neighbouring languages.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
An important collection of papers focusing on evidentials in Turkic, Iranian, and
Uralic languages and the role of language contact in the emergence of
evidentiality.
Stolz, Thomas. 1991. Sprachbund im Baltikum? Estnisch und Lettisch im Zentrum einer
sprachlichen Konvergenzlandschaft. Bochum, Germany: Universitätsverlag Dr. N.
Brockmeyer.
A comprehensive analysis of the Baltic linguistic area, with a special focus on the
development of shared evidential patterns.
Child Language Acquisition
Little has been published so far on the ways children acquire evidentials. Aksu-Koç 1988,
Aksu-Koç 2000, and Aksu-Koç and Slobin 1986 address child language acquisition of
evidentials in Turkish in the context of other verbal categories. Courtney 1999 is a
pioneering discussion of acquisition of the Quechua direct evidential. Also see the
appendix to chapter 11 of Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in Monographs).
Aksu-Koç, A. A. 1988. The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past
reference in Turkish. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A seminal work dealing with the acquisition of aspects in Turkish, with special
attention to the acquisition of the inferential past.
Aksu-Koç, A. A. 2000. Some aspects of the acquisition of evidentials in Turkish. In
Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighbouring languages. Edited by Lars Johanson and
Bo Utas, 15–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Further work on the acquisition of the inferential evidential in Turkish.
Aksu-Koç, A. A., and Dan I. Slobin. 1986. A psychological account of the development
and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology.
Edited by Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 157–167. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
A summary of acquisition of the inferential evidential in Turkish and its
pragmatics.
Courtney, Ellen H. 1999. Child acquisition of Quechua affirmative suffix. In Proceedings
from the second Workshop on American Indigenous Languages. Edited by Workshop on
American Indigenous Languages, 30–41. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 9. Santa
Barbara: Univ. of California.
A preliminary investigation of child language acquisition of the visual, or
“affirmative,” evidential in the Cuzco-Collao variety of Quechua.
Information Sources and Cultural Stereotypes
The ways speakers use evidentials in discourse reflect attitudes toward knowledge and
cultural stereotypes. These are addressed in most sources on evidentials in individual
languages, among them Weber 1989 (cited in Quechua), Aikhenvald 2002 (cited in
Lowland Amazonian Languages), Dixon 2003 (cited in Small Language Families and
Isolates), Fleck 2007 (cited in Panoan Languages), and Schieffelin 1996 (cited in Pacific
Languages); also see chapter 11 of Aikhenvald 2004 (cited in Monographs). Evidentiality
is linked to responsibility in Hill and Irvine 1992. Lee 1944 and Lee 1950 relate
traditional Wintu evidential use to behavioral patterns. Duranti 2008 relates cultural
inhibitions against talking about other peoples’ thoughts to the requirement to be precise
about one’s information source.
Duranti, Alessandro. 2008. Further reflections on reading other minds. In Special Issue:
Opacity of Other People’s Minds. Anthropological Quarterly 81.2: 483–494.
An introduction by a leading linguistic anthropologist to a special issue of
Anthropological Quarterly, Opacity of Other People’s Minds, focusing on
conventions in reporting other people’s speech and emotional states in a number
of languages of New Guinea, with and without evidentials.
Hill, Jane H., and Judy T. Irvine, eds. 1992. Responsibility and evidence in oral
discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A useful collection of papers dealing with pragmatics of evidentials and the
presentation of evidence in discourse in a number of languages from across the
world.
Lee, D. D. 1944. Linguistic reflection of Wintu thought. International Journal of
American Linguistics 10:181–187.
A seminal paper dealing with cultural conventions of evidentials’ use among the
Wintu of North America.
Lee, D. D. 1950. Notes on the conception of the self among the Wintu Indians. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 45:538–543.
Further investigation of the use of evidentials and attitude toward knowledge
among the Wintu.
Individual Areas, Languages, and Families
Evidential systems are found in about one-quarter of the world’s languages. Small
evidential systems have been described, in varying amount of detail, for Balkan
languages, other Indo-European languages, Turkic languages, Finno-Ugric languages,
and Caucasian languages. Larger evidential systems have been described for TibetoBurman languages, South American languages (covering the Andes and lowland
Amazonia), and North American languages. There are just a few descriptions available
for small evidential systems in languages of Africa, Australia, and the Pacific. Evidential
systems are an areal feature within Eurasia (a comprehensive treatment is in Johanson
and Utas 2000, cited in Areal Features). There are no unequivocal descriptions of
evidential systems in sign languages.
Balkan Languages
Evidentiality (typically two-term systems, with a distinction between eyewitness and
noneyewitness terms, also known as confirmative versus nonconfirmative) is known to be
an areal feature of the Balkans as a linguistic area. Victor A. Friedman (Friedman 1986,
Friedman 2003, Friedman 2006) offers the most-authoritative sources on evidentiality in
the Balkans. Aronson 1967 is a pioneering account of evidentiality and related categories
in Bulgarian.
Aronson, H. I. 1967. The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporary
Bulgarian literary language. In To honor Roman Jakobson. Vol. 1. Edited by Roman
Jakobson, 82–98. The Hague: Mouton.
A pioneering essay on evidentiality and related categories in Bulgarian.
Friedman, Victor A. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and
Albanian. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Edited by Wallace L.
Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 168–187. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
The first concise summary of evidentiality in three focal languages of the
Balkans.
Friedman, Victor A. 2003. Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to
Macedonian and Albanian. In Studies in evidentiality. Edited by Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A comprehensive analysis of evidentiality across the whole Balkans as a linguistic
area, with new linguistic data and additional information on correlations between
evidentials and other meanings, including mirativity.
Friedman, Victor A. 2006. Balkanizing the Balkan Sprachbund. In Grammars in contact.
Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 201–209. Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press.
This article addresses evidentiality in the context of other areal phenomena in the
Balkans, with special attention to previously undescribed Macedonian varieties.
Further Indo-European Languages
Lazard 1985, Windfuhr 1982, and Nazarova 1998 argue for small evidentiality systems in
Indo-Iranian languages. Evidentials in Dardic are addressed in Bashir 1988; in Armenian
in Donabédian 2001; and in Baltic, Scandinavian, and Romance in Haugen 1972,
Timberlake 1982, and Squartini 2007, respectively. Many Indo-European languages
distinguish just a reported or an inferential evidential, while others have a two-term
opposition between witnessed and unwitnessed information source. Inferential meanings
are often associated with perfect aspect, and an inferential evidential may develop out of
reinterpretation of the perfect (see Aikhenvald 2004, cited in Monographs). Joseph 2003
poses the question of the existence of evidentials in Proto-Indo-European. The role of
areal diffusion in the development of evidentials in Baltic languages is addressed in Stolz
1991 (cited in Areal Features). Johanson and Utas 2000 (cited in Areal Features) contains
descriptions of small evidential systems in five Iranian languages and in Armenian.
Bashir, Elena. 1988. Inferentiality in Kalasha and Khowar. In Papers from the 24th
Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Edited by Lynn MacLeod,
Gary Larson, and Diane Brentari, 47–59. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
A seminal paper accounting for the existence of witnessed versus nonwitnessed
evidentiality distinctions in two previously undescribed Dardic languages.
Donabédian, Anaïd. 2001. Towards a semasiological account of evidentials: An
enunciative approach of -er in Modern Western Armenian. Journal of Pragmatics
33:421–442.
A comprehensive account of the meanings of inferential, or noneyewitness,
evidential in Armenian, based on discourse uses.
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The inferential perfect in Scandinavian. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics 17:132–139.
Analysis of evidential meaning of inference encoded in the perfect forms in
Scandinavian languages.
Joseph, Brian. 2003. Evidentiality in Proto-Indo-European? Building a case. In
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference (Los Angeles,
8–9 November 2002). Edited by K. Jones-Bley, M. Huld, A. Della Volpe, and M.
Robbins Dexter, 96–111. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 47.
Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
Pioneering attempt at inquiring whether ancient Indo-European languages had
grammaticalized evidentiality.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1985. L’inférenciel ou passé distancié en Persan. Studia Iranica 14:27–
42.
Discussion of the expression of inferential meanings through distant past in
Modern Persian and whether this can be considered an evidential in its own right.
Nazarova, Z. O. 1998. Sistema ishkashimskogo glagola v sopostavlenii s badakhshanskotajiikskoj. Moscow, Russia: Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan.
Detailed analysis of the way perfect forms can be used to mark reported and
inferred information in Ishkashim, a previously undescribed Iranian language
from the Pamir region, in comparison with Badakhan Tajik.
Squartini, Mario. 2007. Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian.
Linguistics 46:917–947.
Comprehensive and accessible analysis of the ways reported and inferential
evidential meanings can be expressed in the two Romance languages.
Timberlake, Alan. 1982. The impersonal passive in Lithuanian. In Proceedings of the
Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Edited by Monica Macaulay,
508–523. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
The article focuses on evidential distinctions expressed through the use of
impersonal passive in Lithuanian.
Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1982. The verbal category of inference in Persian. In Monumentum
Georg Morgenstierne II. Acta Iranica 22. Edited by M. Lorenz and Shaul Shaked, 264–
287. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Discussion of inferential meanings of verbal tenses in Persian.
Turkic Languages
Lars Johanson (Johanson 2000, Johanson 2003) is the major authority on evidentials in
Turkic languages (alternatively termed “indirectives”). Evidentials in Turkic languages
(e.g., Salar, Khalaj, Gagauz) have also been addressed in contributions to Johanson and
Utas 2000. This volume and Johanson 2002 also address the role of language contact in
the emergence of evidentials in Turkic. Slobin and Aksu-Koç 1982 discusses Turkish
evidentials within the tense-aspect-mood system.
Johanson, Lars. 2000. Turkic indirectives. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and
neighbouring languages. Edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 61–87. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
A seminal article dealing with semantics and expression of evidentials across
Turkic languages.
Johanson, Lars. 2002. Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. London: Curzon.
Comprehensive analysis of Turkic languages in contact, with a special focus on
evidentiality as a diffusional feature.
Johanson, Lars. 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Studies in evidentiality. Edited by
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 273–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A detailed analysis of evidentials, their correlations with other categories, and
pragmatic and semantic overtones across the family.
Johanson, Lars, and Bo Utas, eds. 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighbouring
languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
An important collection of papers focusing on evidentials in Turkic, Iranian, and
Uralic languages and the role of language contact in the emergence of
evidentiality.
Slobin, Dan I., and A. A. Aksu-Koç. 1982. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the
Turkish evidential. In Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Edited by Paul
J. Hopper, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A detailed analysis of how the semantics of evidentials in Turkish correlates with
other verbal categories.
Uralic Languages
Small systems of evidentials are a feature of a number of Balto-Finnic languages (Stolz
1991, cited in Areal Features, provides an areal perspective), all the subgroups of Finnic,
and two Ugric languages, Khanty and Mansi (Nikolaeva 1999), but not Hungarian,
discussed in Abondolo 1998 and Leinonen 2000. Fernandez-Vest 1996 discusses
differences among Finnish, Estonian, and Saami. Metslang and Pajusalu 2002 considers
the origins of evidentials in Estonian dialects. The origin of the evidential in Estonian is
discussed in Campbell 1991 (cited in Historical Development) and in Muižniece, et al.
1999 in comparison with Latvian. Evidentials in Samoyedic languages are addressed in
Künnap 2002 and Perrot 1996.
Abondolo, Daniel, ed. 1998. The Uralic languages. London: Routledge.
A state-of-the-art collection of grammar sketches of Uralic languages, with
individual chapters addressing evidentiality distinctions (Estonian by Tiit-Rein
Viitso, Mordva by Gábor Zaicz, Mari by Eeva Kangasmaa-Minn, Permian by
Timothy Riese, Udmurt by Sándor Csúcs, Komi by Anu-Reet Hausenberg,
Khanty by Daniel Abondolo, Mansi by László Keresztes, Nganasan and Selkup
by Eugene Helimski, Nenets by Tapani Salminen).
Fernandez-Vest, M. M. J. 1996. Du médiatif finno-ougrien: Mode oblique en Estonien,
particules en Finnois et en Same. In L’énonciation médiatisée. Vol. 1. Edited by Zlatka
Guentchéva, 169–182. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.
A useful discussion of reported evidential in Estonian (traditionally termed
kaudne kõneviis, or oblique mode) and its correlates in Saami and Finnish that
have no grammatical evidentials.
Künnap, Ago. 2002. On the Enets evidential suffixes. Linguistica Uralica 2:145–153.
Concise discussion of a small evidentiality system in Enets, a Samoyedic language.
Leinonen, M. 2000. Evidentiality in Komi Zyryan. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and
neighbouring languages. Edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 419–440. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Detailed analysis of evidential meanings in Komi Zyryan in the context of
neighboring languages.
Metslang, Helle, and K. Pajusalu. 2002. Evidentiality in South Estonian. Linguistica
Uralica 2:98–109.
Detailed analysis of the origins and meanings of the reported evidential in South
Estonian dialects.
Muižniece, L., Helle Metslang, and K. Pajusalu. 1999. Past participle finitization in
Estonian and Latvian. In Estonian: Typological studies III. Edited by Mati Erelt, 128–
157. Tartu, Estonia: Department of Estonian of the Univ. of Tartu.
Analysis of the historical development of a reported evidential out of a participle
in Estonian and Latvian, two unrelated languages in contact with each other.
Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. The semantics of Northern Khanty evidentials. Journal de la
Société Finno-Ougrienne 88:131–159.
Comprehensive account of semantics and use of a two-term evidential system in
an Ugric language.
Perrot, J. R. 1996. Un médiatif ouralien: L’auditif en Samoyède Nenets. In L’énonciation
médiatisée. Vol. 1. Edited by Zlatka Guentchéva, 157–168. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.
Detailed analysis of the inferential-reported evidential in Nenets, a Samoyedic language.
Skribnik, E. K. 1998. K voprosu o neochevidnom naklonenii v mansijskom jazyke
(struktura i semantika). Jazyki korennyh narodov Sibiri 4:197–215.
Comprehensive analysis of the meanings of noneyewitness evidentiality in Mansi,
an Ob-Ugric language.
Languages of the Caucasus
Languages of the Caucasus belong to three genetically unrelated groups: South
Caucasian, or Kartvelian (Boeder 2000), Northeast Caucasian (Kibrik 1977, Maisak and
Merdanova 2002, Maisak and Tatevosov 2001, Tatevosov 2001a; Tatevosov 2001b), and
Northwest Caucasian (Chirikba 2003, Hewitt 1979). Each of these has a small system of
evidentials, typically an eyewitness versus noneyewitness opposition or a marker with the
meaning of reported evidentiality or inference. Chirikba 2008 (cited in Contact-Induced
Change) considers evidentiality an areal feature of the Caucasus as a linguistic area.
Boeder, W. 2000. Evidentiality in Georgian. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and
neighbouring languages. Edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 275–328. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
A seminal paper on reported evidential in Georgian, a South Caucasian language.
Chirikba, Vjacheslav. 2003. Evidential category and evidential strategy in Abkhaz. In
Studies in evidentiality. Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 243–
272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
An exhaustive analysis of inferred evidential in Abkhaz, based on an extensive
corpus of texts, in the context of other Northwest Caucasian languages (including
Abaza and Ubykh) and as part of the Caucasus as a linguistic area.
Hewitt, B. G. 1979. The expression of “inferentiality” in Abkhaz. Journal of Linguistics
15:87–90.
This pioneering paper is the first attempt to analyze evidentiality in Abkhaz, a
Northwest Caucasian language.
Kibrik, A. E. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija archinskogo jazuka. Vol. 2,
Taksonomicheskaja grammatika. Moscow, USSR: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo
Universiteta.
This first comprehensive grammar of a Northeast Caucasian language, Archi.
Provides an incisive analysis of eyewitness versus noneyewitness evidentials,
with special attention to their semantics and use in discourse.
Maisak, T. A., and S. P. Merdanova. 2002. Kategoria evidencialjnosti v aguljskom
jazyke. Kavkazovedenije 1:102–112.
A comprehensive description of evidentiality in Agul, a poorly documented
Northeast Caucasian language.
Maisak, T. A., and S. G. Tatevosov. 2001. Lichnaja zasvideteljstvovannostj. In Bagvalal:
Grammar, texts, dictionaries. Edited by A. E. Kibrik, 307–312. Moscow, Russia:
Nasledie.
A chapter in a multiauthored grammar of Bagvalal, a Northeast Caucasian
language. This is the first in-depth study of the eyewitness form of verbs in this
language.
Tatevosov, S. G. 2001a. From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in
Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 33:443–464.
A comparative study of reported and noneyewitness evidentials in NakhDaghestanian (Northeast Caucasian) languages, based on reanalysis of erstwhile
perfect forms.
Tatevosov, S. G. 2001b. Kosvennaja zasvideteljstvovannostj. In Bagvalal: Grammar,
texts, dictionaries. Edited by A. E. Kibrik, 294–307. Moscow, Russia: Nasledie.
A chapter in a multiauthored grammar of Bagvalal, a Northeast Caucasian
language. This is a comprehensive study of the noneyewitness (“oblique”) form of
verbs in this language.
Tibeto-Burman Languages
Tibeto-Burman languages show considerable diversity in their evidential systems,
summarized in Aikhenvald and LaPolla 2007. Many of them have large and complex
systems of evidentials, where evidentiality interacts with tense, aspect, mirativity, and
person marking (see Egerod 1985 on Akha, Lidz 2007 on Yongning Na, Watters 2002 on
Kham; see also Grunow-Hårsta 2007 and DeLancey 2001, both cited in Mirativity). The
exact nature of evidentiality and person marking (see Person Marking) in some
languages, such as Tibetan, as presented in DeLancey 1985, remains a matter of debate.
Garrett 2001 links this to assertion in declarative clauses. Evidentials linked to the
personal domain in Amdo-Tibetan are discussed in Sun 1993. Multisource origins of
evidentials are discussed in Saxena 1997 and Thurgood 1981.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and Randy J. LaPolla. 2007. New perspectives on evidentials:
A view from Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30.2: 1–12.
A summary of newly discovered systems of evidentials in Tibeto-Burman
languages, with up to five evidential distinctions: Rgyalthang Tibetan, Darma,
nDrapa, Magar and Tabo (reviewing Grunow-Hårsta 2007 and Hein 2007, cited in
Mirativity), and Yongning Na (Mosuo) (Lidz 2007).
DeLancey, Scott. 1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. In
Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Edited
by Mary Niepokuj and Claudia Brugman, 65–72. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics
Society.
A seminal paper dealing with the expression of eyewitness versus noneyewitness
evidentials in Lhasa Tibetan and its correlations with other verbal categories.
Egerod, Soren. 1985. Typological features in Akha. In Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan
area: The state of the art; Papers presented to Paul K. Benedict for his 71st birthday.
Edited by Graham Thurgood, James A. Matisoff, and David Bradley, 96–104. Canberra,
Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
A seminal study of typologically unusual evidential distinctions in Akha.
Garrett, Edward J. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. PhD diss., Univ. of
California, Los Angeles.
A comprehensive analysis of discourse functions of evidentials in Tibetan and
their correlations with statements and assertions.
Lidz, Liberty A. 2007. Evidentiality in Yongning Na (Mosuo). Linguistics of the TibetoBurman Area 30.2: 45–88.
A detailed study of an unusual evidential system in a previously undescribed
Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Yunnan Province in China, with a fivefold
system of evidential distinctions: direct/visual evidence is formally unmarked,
while grammaticalized particles indicate reported, quotative, inferential, and
common knowledge.
Saxena, Anju. 1997. Aspect and evidential morphology in Standard Lhasa Tibetan: A
diachronic study. Cahiers de Linguistique–Asie Orientale 26:281–306.
An account of correlations between evidentials and aspects in Lhasa Tibetan.
Sun, J. T. S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo-Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and
Philology, Academia Sinica 63–64:945–1001.
A major contribution to the study of evidentials in a Tibetan dialect, with special
attention to the correlations between the semantics of the verb and that of an
evidential and the so-called exophoric systems.
Thurgood, Graham. 1981. The historical development of the Akha evidentials system. In
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Edited by
Danny K. Alford, 295–302. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Analysis of the origin of the unusual system of Akha evidentials.
Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A comprehensive, in-depth grammar of a previously undescribed Tibeto-Burman
language of Nepal, with an especially incisive analysis of reported evidentiality
and mirativity as an independent category.
North American Indian Languages
The study of evidentiality as a category was started by Boas 1911 and Boas 1938 (cited in
Articles) and was primarily based on American Indian languages. These display intricate
systems of evidentials. A survey is in Mithun 1999. A number of papers in Chafe and
Nichols 1986 (cited in Edited Collections) focus on North America. Silver and Miller
1997 provides a survey of various features of American Indian languages, including
evidentiality.
Boas, Franz. 1911. Kwakiutl. In Handbook of American Indian languages. Pt. 1. Edited
by Franz Boas, 423–557. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution.
A pioneering and detailed study of an evidentiality system in a North American
Indian language. Some evidentials, such as one for “dreams,” are unique.
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
A comprehensive survey of the languages of Native North America, with a potted
description of every language and every family. A remarkably comprehensive
resource for categories such as evidentials.
Silver, Shirley, and Wick R. Miller. 1997. American Indian languages: Cultural and
social contexts. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press.
A general introduction to the languages of the Americas, with special focus on
evidentiality as their major feature.
Individual Studies
Muskogean languages have a complex system of information source and the expression
of self, discussed in Broadwell 2006. A small system in Western Apache is presented in
de Reuse 2003, and one in Dena’ina in Holton and Lovick 2008. Jacobsen 1986 focuses
on the history of the notion of evidentiality and evidentials in Wakashan. Evidentials in
Algonquian languages are in Drapeau 1996 and James, et al. 2001. Whether or not West
Greenlandic has an evidential system is discussed in Fortescue 2003. The expression of
information source and its double marking in Pomoan languages are addressed in
McLendon 2003. Peterson 2010 focuses on pragmatics of evidentiality in Gitksan.
Broadwell, George A. 2006. A Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska
Press.
This comprehensive grammar of Chocktaw, a Muskogean language, discusses
evidentiality in some detail.
de Reuse, W. J. 2003. Evidentiality in Western Apache. In Studies in evidentiality. Edited
by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 79–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A comprehensive description of evidentiality and evidential extensions of
nonevidential categories in an Athabaskan language.
Drapeau, Lynn. 1996. Conjurers: The use of evidentials in Montaignais second-hand
narratives. In Nikotwâsik iskwâhtêm, pâskihtêpayih! Studies in honour of H. C. Wolfart.
Edited by J. D. Nichols and A. C. Ogg, 171–194. Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics
Memoir 13. Winnipeg: Univ. of Manitoba.
A detailed, discourse-based study of the use of evidentials in an Algonquian
language.
Fortescue, Michael. 2003. Evidentiality in West Greenlandic: A case of scattered coding.
In Studies in evidentiality. Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon,
291–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A detailed study of various means of expressing evidentiality in West
Greenlandic.
Holton, Gary, and Olga Lovick. 2008. Evidentiality in Dena’ina Athabaskan.
Anthropological Linguistics 50:292–323.
A comprehensive analysis of a small evidential system in a Northern Athabaskan
language.
Jacobsen, W. H., Jr. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. In Evidentiality:
The linguistic coding of epistemology. Edited by Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols,
3–28. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
A comprehensive analysis of a heterogenous system of evidentials in Makah, a
Wakashan language, accompanied by a history of recognition and naming of
evidentiality as a category.
James, Deborah, Sandra Clarke, and Marguerite Mackenzie. 2001. The encoding of
information source in Algonquian: Evidentials in Cree/Montagnais/Naskapi.
International Journal of American Linguistics 67:229–263.
A detailed analysis of inferential evidentials in three Algonquian languages.
McLendon, Sally. 2003. Evidentials in Eastern Pomo with a comparative survey of the
category in other Pomoan languages. In Studies in evidentiality. Edited by Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
An in-depth, fieldwork-based description of evidentials in Eastern Pomo and
other Pomoan languages. The most comprehensive source dealing with a Pomoan
language.
Peterson, Tyler Roy Gösta. 2010. Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the
semantics-pragmatics interface. PhD diss., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver.
An in-depth analysis of evidentials, their use, and their interrelations with
epistemic modality in Gitskan, a Tsimshianic language from Canada.
Mesoamerican Languages
A few grammatical descriptions of Mesoamerican languages address evidentials. They
appear to be a salient feature of Uto-Aztecan languages, as described in Casad 1984,
Casad 1992, and Willett 1991. Evidentials in other families in Mesoamerica require
further investigation.
Casad, Eugene. 1984. Cora. In Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches. Edited by
Ronald Langacker, 151–459. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Univ. of Texas
at Austin.
A concise grammar of a Uto-Aztecan language, with a detailed discussion of a
small evidential system.
Casad, Eugene. 1992. Cognition, history, and Cora yee. Cognitive Linguistics 3:151–186.
An in-depth analysis of semantics and usage of the Cora inferential evidential.
Willett, Thomas. 1991. A reference grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. Dallas: Summer
Institute of Linguistics and Univ. of Texas at Arlington.
This reference grammar addresses an unusually large system of evidentials in this
Uto-Aztecan language. The number and kinds of evidentials are different from
those described in Willett 1988 (cited in Articles). This casts doubt on his analysis
of the language.
Languages of the Andes
Quechua and Aymara (see Quechua and Aymara), the major language groups of the
Andean part of South America, have three-term systems of evidentials. Adelaar 2004
provides a comprehensive account of these and other language groups in the Andean area
and can be used as a highly reliable resource on various grammatical issues, including
evidentials. Aikhenvald 2007 provides an overview of languages of the Pacific Coast of
South America, covering their evidential systems.
Adelaar, W. F. H. 2004. The languages of the Andes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
A detailed and comprehensive account of languages of the Andean area and
neighboring regions. A most reliable resource for evidentials in languages of these
areas.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Languages of the Pacific Coast of South America. In
The vanishing languages of the Pacific Rim. Edited by Osahito Miyaoka, Osamu
Sakiyama, and Michael Krauss, 183–205. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
A brief survey of languages of the Pacific Coast of South America (including
Mochica, Barbacoan, Chocoan, and others), with an overview of their evidential
systems.
Aymara
Evidentials in Aymara have been discussed almost exclusively in Hardman 1981 in their
pragmatic and social context and in Hardman 1986 in terms of their use and place in the
tense system.
Hardman, Martha J. 1986. Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In Evidentiality:
The linguistic coding of epistemology. Edited by Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols,
113–136. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
A detailed study of evidentiality and its cultural correlates in Aymara and related
languages.
Hardman, Martha J., ed. 1981. The Aymara language in its social and cultural context: A
collection of essays on aspects of Aymara language and culture. Gainesville: Univ.
Presses of Florida.
A collection of essays dealing with Aymara grammar and culture, with the
editor’s introductory essay specifically focusing on the evidential system.
Quechua
Most studies of Quechua deal with evidentials (also termed “validationals” or
“verificationals”). Their semantics and pragmatics are treated in Faller 2002, Floyd 1999,
and Weber 1989. Hintz 2008 puts evidentials in the context of tense and aspect. Adelaar
1997 focuses on expressive and social aspects of use. Visual or direct evidential as a
marker of certainty and control is specifically discussed in Floyd 1996a and Nuckolls
1993, and the reported evidential is discussed in Floyd 1996b.
Adelaar, W. F. H. 1997. Los marcadores de validación y evidencialidad en quechua:
Automatismo o elemento expresivo? Amérindia 22:4–13.
An incisive analysis of the semantics of evidentiality and its expressive use.
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cusco Quechua. PhD
diss., Stanford Univ.
A cognitive linguistic analysis of evidentials in one Quechua variety.
Floyd, Rick. 1996a. Experience, certainty and control, and the direct evidential in Wanka
Quechua questions. Functions of Language 3:69–93.
A detailed investigation of epistemic and further pragmatic overtones of the
visual, or direct, evidential in Wanka Quechua.
Floyd, Rick. 1996b. The radial structure of the Wanka reportative. In Cognitive
linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics. Edited by
Eugene Casad, 895–941. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
A detailed analysis of the category of reported evidential in Wanka Quechua.
Floyd, Rick. 1999. The structure of evidential categories in Wanka Quechua. Arlington:
Summer Institute of Linguistics and Univ. of Texas at Arlington.
The most comprehensive and detailed investigation of evidentials in any Quechua
variety to date (2011).
Hintz, Daniel J. 2008. Aspect and aspectual interfaces in South Conchucos Quechua: The
emergence of grammatical systems. PhD diss., Univ. of California, Santa Barbara.
A detailed and comprehensive discussion of tense and aspect in a Quechua
variety, addressing evidentials and their correlations with other categories.
Nuckolls, Janis B. 1993. The semantics of certainty in Quechua and its implications for a
cultural epistemology. Language in Society 22:235–255.
An in-depth investigation of epistemic extension of the visual, or direct, evidential
in Quechua.
Weber, David J. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley: Univ. of
California Press.
One of the most comprehensive grammars of a Quechua language to date (2011).
It contains a comprehensive, detailed, and insightful analysis of evidentials and
their cultural correlates.
Lowland Amazonian Languages
Many lowland Amazonian languages have complex evidential systems, in particular
Arawak, Tucanoan, and Panoan. A number of general survey articles in Dixon and
Aikhenvald 1999 address these. Most grammars of Amazonian languages include a
lengthy discussion of evidentials. Development of evidentials through language contact is
addressed in Aikhenvald 2002; see also Aikhenvald 2003 and Epps 2005 (both cited in
Contact-Induced Change). Evidentials as an areal phenomenon in Amazonia are
discussed in Aikhenvald and Dixon 1998 (cited in Tense, Aspect, and Mood).
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press.
This monograph focuses on language contact in northwest Amazonia and contains
a brief description of evidential systems in this area (covering Tucanoan, Arawak,
and some Makú languages).
Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. 1999. The Amazonian languages.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A state-of-the art collection of chapters on individual language families and areas.
Contributions by D. C. Derbyshire on Carib, Janet Barnes on Tucanoan, Eugene
Loos on Panoan, Ivan Lowe on Nambiquara, and Mary Ruth Wise on small
languages and isolates of Peru deal specifically with complex evidential systems.
Arawak Languages
Most Arawak languages have evidentials with varied degrees of complexity. Tariana,
from northwestern Brazil (Aikhenvald 2003), has a five-term system developed recently.
Nanti, from southeastern Peru, has three (Michael 2008).
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. A grammar of Tariana, from northwest Amazonia.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A comprehensive grammar of an Arawak language with a five-term system of
evidentials.
Michael, Lev. 2008. Nanti evidential practice: Language, knowledge, and social action in
an Amazonian society. PhD diss., Univ. of Texas at Austin.
A detailed account of the use of evidentials in Nanti, a Campa (Arawak)
language, in the light of attitudes toward knowledge and their social correlates
(accompanied by a brief sketch of the grammar).
Carib Languages
Carib languages tend to have small evidential systems marked through particles, as in
Hixkaryana (Derbyshire 1985). Basso 2008 describes them as part of epistemic deixis.
Hoff 1986 links them to expression of personal stance. Newly developed evidentials in
Trio and other North Carib languages reflect attitude toward knowledge, according to
Carlin 2002.
Basso, Ellen. 2008. Epistemic deixis in Kalapalo. Pragmatics 18:215–252.
A discussion of evidentials and their epistemic extensions in a South Carib
language.
Carlin, Eithne B. 2002. Patterns of language, patterns of thought: The Cariban languages.
In Atlas of the languages of Suriname. Edited by Eithne B. Carlin and Jacques Arends,
47–81. Leiden, The Netherlands: KITLV.
An overview of evidentials and their cultural correlates in Carib languages, with a
focus on Trio, a North Carib language.
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985. Hixkaryana and linguistic typology. Dallas: Summer
Institute of Linguistics.
A pioneering grammar of a Carib language, which has become a classic.
Addresses a complex system of evidential particles.
Hoff, Berend. 1986. Evidentiality in Carib. Lingua 69:49–103.
A comprehensive analysis of evidentials and their semantics in a Carib language.
Panoan Languages
Many Panoan languages have elaborate evidential systems. Matses distinguishes
evidentials in all tenses, including future (Fleck 2007). Valenzuela 2003 offers a
comparative perspective on the family.
Fleck, David. 2007. Evidentiality and double tense in Matses. Language 83:589–614.
A fundamental piece of work addressing an unusual evidential system in a Panoan
language and how information source can be marked twice on the verb.
Valenzuela, Pilar B. 2003. Evidentiality in Shipibo-Konibo, with a comparative overview
of the category in Panoan. In Studies in evidentiality. Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
and R. M. W. Dixon, 33–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A detailed discussion of evidentials in a Panoan language and their use in the
changing social environment.
Tucanoan Languages
Tucanoan languages have four-term or five-term systems of evidentials. Barnes 1984 was
the first to discuss these systems. Malone 1988 reinterprets the markers in historical
perspective. Their correlations with epistemic meanings are the focus of Stenzel 2008.
Barnes, Janet. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American
Linguistics 50:255–271.
A pioneering description of a five-term evidentiality system in an East Tucanoan
language from northwest Amazonia, which has become a standard reference in
the field.
Malone, Terrell A. 1988. The origin and development of Tuyuca evidentials.
International Journal of American Linguistics 54:119–140.
A seminal paper and a classic in the field. A comprehensive account of the history
and development of evidentials in Tuyuca, an East Tucanoan language, in the
context of other East Tucanoan languages.
Stenzel, Kristine S. 2008. Evidentials and clause modality in Wanano. Studies in
Language 32:409–446.
A study of evidentials and their correlations with modal meanings in an East
Tucanoan language.
Tupí-Guaraní Languages
Evidential systems in Tupí-Guaraní languages vary from just reported evidentiality, as
addressed in Floyd 2005 and Kracke 2010, to large systems with double marking (Seki
2000). Seki 2000 also stresses the importance of natural discourse in the work on
evidentials.
Floyd, Simeon. 2005. The poetics of evidentiality in South American storytelling. Santa
Barbara Papers in Linguistics 16:28–41.
Addresses the discourse role of evidentiality in Nheengatú, a Tupí-Guaraní
language.
Kracke, Waud H. 2010. Dream as deceit, dream as truth: The grammar of telling dreams.
Anthropological Linguistics 51:61–77.
An in-depth discussion of the use of the inferential evidential in Parintin, a TupíGuaraní language, with a special focus on talking about dreams.
Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do Kamaiurá, língua Tupí-Guaraní do Alto Xingu.
Campinas, Brazil: Editora da Unicamp.
The most comprehensive grammar of a Tupí-Guaraní language to date (2011),
with an in-depth, discourse-based account of an intricate evidential system.
Small Language Families and Isolates
Evidentials are a robust feature of Jarawara, from the Arawá family in Brazil, described
in Dixon 2003. A comparative perspective is in Dixon 2004. Nambiquara languages,
among them Mamaindê (Eberhard 2009), have at least four evidentials. Hup, a Makú
language, developed five evidentials under Tucano influence, as discussed in Epps 2008.
Urarina, an isolate from northeastern Peru, has three obligatory evidentials (Olawsky
2006).
Dixon, R. M. W. 2003. Evidentiality in Jarawara. In Studies in evidentiality. Edited by
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 165–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A comprehensive analysis of a small evidentiality system in an Arawá language
from southern Amazonia.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. The Jarawara language of southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press.
A comprehensive grammar of Jarawara, an Arawá language from southern
Amazonia, with a special focus on its small evidential system, its origins, and its
usage in verbs and noun phrases.
Eberhard, David. 2009. Mamaindê grammar: A Northern Nambiquara language in its
cultural context. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
A comprehensive grammar of a Northern Nambiquara language with a complex
system of six evidentials.
Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
A comprehensive grammar of a Makú language with a five-term evidentiality
system developed as a result of areal diffusion from East Tucanoan languages.
Olawsky, Knut. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
A comprehensive grammar of a linguistic isolate, with a detailed analysis of a
threefold evidentiality system.
African Languages
Very few African languages have so far been described as having evidentials. The
systems described are relatively simple. Sissala (Gur; Blass 1989) and Lega (Bantu;
Botne 2003) have just one evidential referring to reported or inferred information, while
Luwo (Nilotic) has a noneyewitness evidential in perfect aspect (Storch 2006), and
Shilluk (also Nilotic) adds to this a reported evidential, as outlined in Miller and Gilley
2007. In all likelihood, evidentiality will be found in further African languages, as can be
seen from recently published grammars (e.g., Fur, a Nilo-Saharan language, with a
reported evidential, in Waag 2010). Dimmendaal 2001 suggests that many African
languages have further evidential distinctions.
Blass, Renate. 1989. Grammaticalization of interpretive use: The case of re- in Sissala.
Lingua 79:299–326.
A description of an evidential marker referring to inference and to reported speech
in a Gur language from Upper Volta.
Botne, Robert. 2003. Lega (Beya dialect). In The Bantu languages. Edited by Derek
Nurse and Gérard Philippson, 442–449. London: Routledge.
A description of a reported evidential marker in a Bantu language from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2001. Logophoric marking and represented speech in African
languages as evidential hedging strategies. Australian Journal of Linguistics 21:131–157.
A uniquely comprehensive discussion of nongrammatical ways of expressing
information source in a variety of African languages.
Miller, C. L., and L. G. Gilley. 2007. Evidentiality and mirativity in Shilluk. In Advances
in Nilo-Saharan linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th International Nilo-Saharan
Linguistics Colloquium. Edited by Mechthild Reh and Doris L. Payne, 191–206.
Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
The first description of a so-far-unique three-term evidential system in a Nilotic
language. Shilluk also has a special marker for mirativity (see Mirativity).
Storch, Anne. 2006. Aspect and evidentiality in Luwo. In Insights into Nilo-Saharan
language, history, and culture: Proceedings of the 9th. Nilo-Saharan Linguistics
Colloquium, Khartoum 2004. Edited by A. Abu-Manga, L. Gilley, and A. Storch, 393–
402. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
A pioneering paper dealing with an eyewitness/noneyewitness evidential
distinction in perfect aspect in Luwo, a Nilotic language. Prior to this, evidentials
were considered nonexistent in Nilotic languages.
Waag, Christine. 2010. The Fur verb and its context. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
A comprehensive grammar of a Nilo-Saharan language that includes a detailed
discourse-based discussion of a reported evidential.
Australian Aboriginal Languages
Small evidential systems have been described for two critically endangered Australian
Aboriginal languages, Diyari (Austin 1981) and Ngiyambaa (Donaldson 1980). Wilkins
1989, Laughren 1982, and Goddard 1985 discuss reported evidential in Aranda, Warlpiri,
and varieties of the Western Desert Language (e.g., Yankunytjatjara and Pitjanjatjara),
respectively. The evidential is used in statements and in commands.
Austin, Peter K. 1981. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
A grammar of a language formerly spoken in New South Wales, containing a
superficial and scantily illustrated description of a typologically unusual system
consisting of a reported and a sensory evidential.
Donaldson, Tamsin. 1980. Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A masterly grammar of a language formerly spoken in New South Wales, with a
detailed discussion of a system of a reported evidential with epistemic overtones
of uncertainty and a sensory evidential that may refer to information acquired
through vision, hearing, or touch.
Goddard, Cliff. 1985. A grammar of Yankunytjatjara. Alice Springs, Australia: Institute
for Aboriginal Development.
A detailed grammar of a variety of the Western Desert Language with a reported
evidential, richly illustrated in its various contexts of use. Originally Goddard’s
1983 PhD dissertation, “A semantically-oriented grammar of the Yankuntjatjara
dialect of the Western Desert language,” Australian National University,
Canberra.
Laughren, Mary. 1982. A preliminary description of propositional particles in Warlpiri.
In Papers in Warlpiri grammar: In memory of Lothar Jagst. Edited by S. Swartz, 129–
163. Work Papers of SIL-AAB, Ser. A, Vol. 6. Darwin, Australia: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
A sketch of various particles in Warlpiri, among them a reported evidential.
Wilkins, David P. 1989. Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and
semantics of grammar. PhD diss., Australian National Univ., Canberra.
A comprehensive grammar of a variety of Arrernte, with some discussion of the
reported evidential in various contexts, including commands.
Pacific Languages
The survey in Aikhenvald and Stebbins 2007 discusses evidentials in languages of the
Pacific. Mangap-Mbula (Bugenhagen 1995) and a few Philippine languages (Ballard
1974) are among the few Austronesian languages with evidentials. Evidentiality is a
prominent feature of a number of languages in the highlands of Papua New Guinea and
especially languages of the Kutubuan family, analyzed first in May and Loeweke 1980
and then in San Roque 2008 and Schieffelin 1996. An unusually small system is in
Tauya, from Madang Province, in MacDonald 1990. Lawrence 1987 argues for an
unusual category of viewpoint in the isolate Oksapmin, distinct from evidentiality in this
language.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and Tonya N. Stebbins. 2007. Languages of New Guinea. In
The vanishing languages of the Pacific Rim. Edited by Osahito Miyaoka, Osamu
Sakiyama, and Michael Krauss, 239–266. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
A survey article on languages of New Guinea, with a brief summary of
evidentiality systems and reference.
Ballard, D. Lee. 1974. Telling it like it was said, part 1. Notes on Translation 51:23–28.
A brief discussion of a reported evidential in a selection of Philippine languages.
Bugenhagen, R. 1995. A grammar of Mangap-Mbula: An Austronesian language of
Papua New Guinea. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
A grammar of an Oceanic language with a distinction between visual and
nonvisual evidentials (not found anywhere else in this group of languages).
Lawrence, Marshall. 1987. Viewpoint in Oksapmin. Language and Linguistics in
Melanesia 16:54–70.
A tantalizing discussion of a three-term evidentiality system (visual, nonvisual,
and reported) in a language isolate from Sandaun Province of Papua New Guinea.
MacDonald, Lorna. 1990. Evidentiality in Tauya. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia
21:31–46.
A brief discussion of an evidential referring to reported and inferred information
in a language from the Madang Adalbert Range, Papua New Guinea.
May, Jean, and Eunice Loeweke. 1980. General grammar of Faso (Namo Me). Work
Papers in Papua New Guinea Languages 27. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer
Institute of Linguistics.
An outline grammar of a Kutubuan language from the highlands of Papua New
Guinea with a complex system of evidentiality.
San Roque, Lila. 2008. An introduction to Duna grammar. PhD diss., Australian National
Univ.
A detailed grammar of a Kutubuan language, with a lengthy discussion of a
complex system of evidentials.
Schieffelin, Bambi. 1996. Creating evidence: Making sense of the written word in
Bosavi. In Interaction and grammar. Edited by Elinor Ochs, E. Schegloff, and S.
Thompson, 45–60. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A pioneering study of evidential and modal markers in Bosavi, a Kutubuan
language, and their extensions to new means of acquiring information, such as
writing.
Siberian Languages
Among Paleo-Siberian isolates, Yukaghir has a two-term evidential system,
distinguishing visually acquired information from information acquired through other
means (Maslova 2003). Nivkh, also an isolate, appears to have had a distinction between
visually and nonvisually acquired information only in imperatives, discussed in
Krejnovich 1934. Jacquesson 1996 is a concise account of small evidentiality systems in
languages of eastern Siberia.
Jacquesson, François. 1996. Histoire du médiatif en Sibérie Orientale. In L’énonciation
médiatisée. Vol. 1. Edited by Zlatka Guentchéva, 215–232. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.
A concise summary of small evidential systems and their development in
languages of eastern Siberia, including isolates.
Krejnovich, Eruhim A. 1934. Nivkhskij (giljackij) jazyk. In Jazyki i pis’mennost’
narodov Severa. Vol. 3, Jazyki i pis’mennost’ paleoaziatskih narodov. Edited by J. P.
Al’kora, 181–222. Moscow and Leningrad, USSR: Ucandpedgiz.
A pioneering grammar of Nivkh (Gilyak), with a detailed discussion of visualnonvisual distinctions in commands.
Maslova, Elena. 2003. Evidentiality in Yukaghir. In Studies in evidentiality. Edited by
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 219–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A detailed discussion of a small evidential system in an isolate, focusing on its
use in discourse.
Japanese
Whether or not Japanese has an evidentiality system or an evidentiality strategy is a
matter of debate. Aoki 1986 argues for the existence of an evidential system in Japanese.
Mushin 2001 focuses on reported evidentiality as a major term. Watanabe 1984
investigates the status of evidentiality within the verbal system.
Aoki, Haruo. 1986. Evidentials in Japanese. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of
epistemology. Edited by Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 223–238. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
A seminal study of various options for expressing information source in Japanese.
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Japanese reportive evidentiality and the pragmatics of retelling.
Journal of Pragmatics 33:1361–1390.
A rather-restricted discussion of reported evidential in Japanese based on a
limited corpus; does not make any clear distinction between epistemic modality
and evidentiality.
Watanabe, Yasuko. 1984. Transitivity and evidentiality in Japanese. Studies in Language
8:235–251.
One of the first studies addressing the expression of reported evidentiality in
Japanese and its correlations with other categories.
Korean
Whether Korean has a noneyewitness evidential or just a noneyewitness extension of one
of the terms in its mood or modality system remains an open issue. Chang 1996 and Sohn
1986 argue that the so-called retrospective mood in Korean is not primarily evidential; in
other words, this is an example of an evidential strategy. Chun and Zubin 1990 discusses
evidential extensions of experiential constructions.
Chang, In-Bong. 1996. Representation médiate d’un suffixe verbal, -teo-, en coréen
contemporain. In L’énonciation médiatisée. Vol. 1. Edited by Zlatka Guentchéva, 183–
194. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.
A detailed analysis of the “retrospective” mood in Korean and its evidential
extensions and overtones.
Chun, Soon Ae, and David A. Zubin. 1990. Experiential vs. agentive constructions in
Korean narrative. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on the legacy of Grice. Edited by
Kira Hall, 81–93. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
An attempt at analyzing various nonprimarily evidential constructions in Korean
as having evidential extensions.
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1986. Linguistic expeditions. Seoul, South Korea: Hanshin.
A comprehensive analysis of the Korean mood system, arguing for evidentiality
as one of the extensions rather than the primary meaning of the “retrospective”
mood.