What do different methods of data
collection reveal about evidentiality?
1
SEPPO KITTILÄ, ERIKA SANDMAN & LOTTA
JALAVA (UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI)
Outline
2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Background
Grammars
Corpora
Field methods
Questionnaires
Participant observation
Conclusions
Background
3
 Evidentiality is currently one of the most studied
topics in linguistics (see e.g. Aikhenvald & Dixon
2003; Aikhenvald 2004; Peterson & Sauerland
2010).
 There are, for example studies dealing with
evidentiality systems and the use of evidentials in
discourse.
Background
4
 Our study is a part of the project ’Interactional, cross-
linguistic, theoretical and areal perspectives on
evidentiality and egophoricity’. The project comprises
three parts:
1. Theoretical and cross-linguistic perspectives on
evidentials
2. Egophoric marking in Amdo Sprachbund:
interactional, typological and areal perspectives
3. Evidential functions in the Uralic languages and
Siberian contact area
 Visit: https://blogs.helsinki.fi/evid-ego/
Background
5
 Studying many different facets naturally means that
we must use various data collection methods.
 These methods constitute the topic of this talk. Both
pros and cons of the employed methods will be
examined. We will also discuss how the different
methods complement each other.
 This will be done in light of hearsay evidentials.
Case study
6
 Our presentation is based on hearsay evidentials, as in:
Finnish
(1)
Aino on
kuulemma söpö
Aino COP.PRES.3SG
hearsay
cute
’They say that Aino is cute’
Ngiyambaa (Donaldson 1980: 276)
(2)
bura:y-dja=lu
ga:-y-aga
child.ABS-EV=3ABS
bring-CONJ.M-IRR
’It’s said that she’s going to bring the children’
Case study
7
 In what follows, we will discuss the different
methods we are using in light of what they reveal
about hearsay evidentials.
 As will be shown, the different methods are, of
course, not contradictory, but they rather enable us
to approach evidentiality from various perspectives.
For example, data gathered in the field is directly
relevant to typology.
 All methods also have their limitations.
Grammars
8
 General: Hearsay evidentials are common across
languages (quotatives and hearsay evidentials).
Grammars also provide us with information on some
secondary uses (distancing) and the genres where
hearsay evidentials are common may be discussed.
 There are languages, in which hearsay evidential is
the only evidential category available (e.g., Estonian
and Nuosu).
 Grammars reveal what kind of hearsay evidentials
are common across languages, but they do not
necessarily tell what is common within a single
language.
Grammars
9
 Applicability: Grammars constitute the starting point
for any cross-linguistic study on the topic.
 They are also relevant to studies of individual
languages; for example does cross-linguistic
frequency correlate with frequency within a
language?
 Grammars aid field linguists in recognizing certain
evidential categories in the language(s) they are
studying.
Grammars
10
 Problems: grammars usually do not discuss
evidentiality in languages where the category is not
obligatory.
 Moreover, usually only the primary uses of
evidentials are accounted for, and the use of
evidentials for secondary functions (e.g. surprise,
irony) is not necessarily discussed.
Corpora
11
 General: How reported evidentials are used in actual
language; what are their functions, what is
common/rare within languages?
 Are reported evidentials typical of certain genres?
 The use of lexical expressions of evidentiality
(languages for which large corpora are available
usually lack evidentiality as an obligatory category).
Corpora
12
 Applicability: Usage-based studies on evidentiality:
how are evidentials actually used in a single
language?
 The study of lesser known languages (e.g. Wutun,
Nenets) can be informed by studies on evidential
expressions in more extensively studied languages
(e.g. Finnish, for which corpora are available).
 The study of evidentiality strategies (e.g. tense in
many Uralic languages).
Corpora
13
 Problems: corpora may be available for mainly
certain genres that do not necessarily give us a
complete picture of the use of evidentials. For
example, the reported/hearsay evidential of Finnish
would not be attested in a newspaper corpus.
Moreover, large corpora are mainly available for
languages that lack obligatory evidentiality.
 Potential problem/question: is Internet a reliable
corpus? What can we say about evidentials in light of
their uses in the Internet?
Example
14
 Secondary uses of Finnish hearsay evidential kuulemma in
data obtained from Internet:
(3) Puhutko unissasi? Minä kuulemma puhun.
Do you speak in your dreams? They say that I do.
http://www.napsu.fi/vastaukset/kysymys/28152
(4) Sinä kuulemma luet omia kirjoja, piirtelet omaan
vihkoon ja istuskelet.
They say that you read your own books, and make some
drawings in your notebook and sit around.
http://lamppu.tumblr.com/post/15356683334/joo joskus-ennen-joulua-sanoin etta-sain
Field linguistics
15
 General: Information about less studied languages
can be gathered only via field linguistics.
Information on evidentiality in different extralinguistic contexts. Information on secondary uses.
 Applicability: Field linguistics provides invaluable
data for typology and linguistic theory.
 Field linguistics includes several different methods
(elicitiation, stimuli-based techniques, text
collection, participant observation) that complement
each other.
Field linguistics
16
 Problems: Data may be biased towards certain
genres (e.g. folktale narratives) of a language under
study. It is important to study not only monologues
but also dialogues!
 In the case of translation equivalents, interference
from the source language may cause some problems.
 Gathering data is very time-consuming, informants
may be very hard to get in contact with.
Example
17
 Hearsay evidential in multiple perspective constructions (see
Evans 2007) in Wutun (Sinitic, Erika Sandman’s field notes):
(5)
hai
mi-mai-de
re
sho-li
still
NEG-sell-NMLZ
FACT REP-SEN.INF
’(He) still didn't sell (the thangka) (for sure), they say.’
(6)
gu-jhege
qhi-zhe
sho-di-li
3P-PAUC
go-PROSP
say-PROGR-SEN.INF
sho-li
REP-SEN.INF
‘I have heard from somebody that they say they will go’.
Questionnaires
18
 General: Information on exactly those features we
are interested in, we can create exactly the scenes
that should provide us with the relevant information.
For example, we can create scenarios where the
speaker has more than one kind of evidence available
(which are rarely discussed in grammars).
 Study of variation (for example, between different
age groups).
Questionnaires
19
 Applicability: Questionnaires complement other data
collection methods.
 For example, corpora may provide us with some
ideas about the language use that can be checked by
using questionnaires.
 Questionnaires can also be used in field linguistics.
One of the goals of our project is to develop
questionnaires and stimuli-based techniques for
studying evidentials in the field.
Questionnaires
20
 The limits of use of hearsay evidentials. For example,
where hearsay evidentials are no longer possible. Are
they possible with facts, questions etc.
 Questionnaires may be filled by a very high number
of informants, which make them very helpful in any
study of evidentiality.
Example
21
 For example, the visual/inferential evidential of
Finnish is used with more direct sources of
information, while the hearsay evidential is used
whenever the access to the information source is less
direct. See the examples on the next slides.
Examples
22
You read in a paper that Muammar Gaddafi has been
arrested. You tell a friend about this right away:
Muammar Gaddafi on______pidätetty
Muammar Gaddafi has________been arrested
 Näköjään
 Kuulemma
 Both
97
36
1
Examples
23
You read in a paper that Muammar Gaddafi has been
arrested. You tell a friend about this in two hours:
Muammar Gaddafi on______pidätetty
Muammar Gaddafi has________been arrested
 Näköjään
 Kuulemma
7
127
Participant observation
24
 General: Allows studying the use of evidentials in
real-life situations. The use of evidentials in
dialogues involving two or more speakers.
 Important in studying the secondary uses of
evidentials (e.g. surpirse, irony, sarcasm, telling lies).
 Applicability: Complements other methods of data-
gathering (corpora, questionnaires). Is an essential
method in field linguistics.
Example
25
 Hearsay dubitative evidential in Tundra Nenets (Samoyedic
branch of the Uralic language family, Lotta Jalava’s field notes):
(7)
xə-ńaəd=ći
ťeńewə-wna-w?
(ENS/NenTay2011)
what-ABL=CL know-DUB-1SG>SG
‘How would I have known that?' (as I clearly didn’t know)
• The hearsay dubitative evidential encodes indirect knowledge of
a situation to which the speaker does not believe, or, retelling
something that the speaker does not commit herself to
(evidential +, epistemic -).
• It is often used for encoding doubt or pretence, commonly in
interaction and dialogues but never in newspaper texts and only
rarely in written texts.
Concluding remarks
26
 Evidentiality comprises many different facets and it
is therefore important to use many data collection
methods for studying it.
 Different methods reveal different features of
evidentiality, all of which are central if our goal is to
arrive at a comprehensive understanding of
evidentiality.
 Whenever evidentiality is discussed, the pros and
cons of different data collection methods should be
taken seriously.
References
27
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & R.M.W. Dixon 2003 (eds.). Studies in
Evidentiality. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. New York: Oxford
University press.
Donaldson, T. 1980. Ngiyambaa. The language of the Wangaaybuwan.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Nicholas 2007. View with a View: towards a Typology of Multiple
Perspective. Proceedings from Berkeley Linguistics Society 1: 93-120.
Berkeley: University of California.
Peterson, Tyler & Uli Sauerland 2010 (eds.). Evidence from Evidentials.
University of British Columbia. Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 28.