Types of grammatical evidentials in
the languages of the Balkan and
Baltic linguistic areas
Petar Kehayov
University of Tartu / University of Antwerp
petar.kehayov@ua.ac.be
What is grammatical evidentiality?
“In about a quarter of the world’s languages, every statement
must specify the type of source on which it is based – for
example, whether the speaker saw it, or heard it, or inferred it
from indirect evidence, or learnt it from someone else. This
grammatical category, whose primary meaning is information
source is called ‘evidentiality’.” (Aikhenvald 2004: 1)
2
Outline
• Areal clustering of grammatical evidentiality in Europe
• Parameters for comparison
– formal
– semantic and pragmatic
– structural availability (combinability with adjacent functional
categories and clause types)
• Results
• Conclusions
3
Areal clustering of grammatical evidentiality in Europe
KOMI
EST
LIV
LAT
MARI
LIT
CHV
UDM
TAT
BSK
KAZ
GAG
BUL
ALB
MAC AROM
MGLR
NOG
CHE
ABK
GOD
ING
TUR
4
The sample
EST
LAT
LIT
BUL
ALB
MAC
TUR
5
Formal parameters
1) Past participle as evidential form:
Bulgarian
Toj otišăl
na svadba.
he go-PST.PTCP to wedding
‘Allegedly, he went to a wedding.’
2)
Present participle as evidential form:
Lithuanian
Jis rašąs
laišką.
he write-PRS.PTCP letter-ACC
‘Reportedly he is writing a letter.’
6
3)
Other nominalization (e.g. infinitive) as evidential form:
Estonian
Ta
olla pulmas.
s/he be-INF wedding-INE
‘Reportedly s/he is at the wedding.’
4)
Obligatory ellipsis of the finite auxiliary in the evidential
past:
Latvian
Jana vakar
 atnākusi
mājās.
Jana yesterday  come-PST.PTCP home
‘Reportedly Jana has come home yesterday.’
7
5)
The existence of dedicated evidential morpheme:
Latvian
Jana esot
mājās.
Jana be-RM home
‘Reportedly Jana is home.’
6)
The use of the participle of the auxiliary verb as a “distance
particle” (Johanson 1998: 146), cf.:
Bulgarian
Тoj živeel
mnogo dobre.
He live-PST.PTCP very
well
‘Reportedly he lives very well.’
Тоj bil
živeel
mnogo dobre.
He be-PST.PTCP live-PST.PTCP very
well
‘Reportedly (+ lower commitment) he lives very well.’
8
7)
The use of voice distinction as an evidential strategy:
Lithuanian
Jo
rašoma
laiškas. (Gronemeyer 1997: 103)
he-GEN write-PASS.PRS.PTCP.NT letter
‘He is evidently writing a letter.’
9
Semantic and pragmatic parameters
1)
The system covers reported evidentiality
2)
The system covers inferentiality
3)
The system covers mirativity
Albanian
Sa bukur folke
shqip! (Eintrei 1982: 111)
how well speak-ADM.2SG AlbanianADV
‘How well do you speak Albanian!’
10
4) The existence of means for expressing a tripatrite distinction
[UNMARKED / + feature / – feature]:
Macedonian (Friedman 1986)
UNMARKED
FIRSTHAND
NON-FIRSTHAND
beše
imaše
imal
pravil
praveno
praveno
be-IMPF do-ACT.PST.PTCP HAB-IMPF do-PASS.PST.PTCP HAB-PST.PTCP do-PASS.PST.PTCP
‘he had done (it)’ (with ‘he had (it) done’ (the
no reference to the
speaker confirms it)
source of information)
‘he is said to had done (it)’
11
5)
A subtype of evidentiality is specified out of umbrella term, cf.:
Turkish (Slobin & Aksu 1982: 194)
Kemal
gelmiş
Kemal
come-PST.INDIR
‘Kemal has reportedly/evidently come.’
Kemal
gelmiş(i)miş
Kemal
come-PST.INDIR- be-PST.INDIR
‘Kemal has reportedly come.’
6)
The evidential encodes generic statements (i.e. expressions
of epistemic necessity):
Albanian (Duchet & Përnaska 1996: 37)
Po ja
kë fati
qenka
Et voilà que destin.le être (Prés.Adm.3SG)
‘Et voilà que le destin est le destin.’
fat.
destin
12
7)Evidential forms are used when the speaker refers to his own
dreams:
Turkish (Meydan 1996: 131)
Bu gece çok güzel bir rüya gör-dü-m.
Büyük bir
DÉM nuit trés beau un rêve voir-DI-1SG
grand un
bahçe-dey-miş-im.
jardin-LOC-miş-1SG
‘Cette nuit, j’ai fait un trés beau rêve. J’étais dans un jardin immense.’
8)Evidential forms are used with sensory and mental state verbs as
objectivizers of speaker’s feelings:
Albanian (Duchet & Përnaska 1996: 36)
– Po më ardhka
keq per Franin, – tha
vëllai.
me venir(Prés.Adm.3SG) mal pourFran
dire(Aor.3SG) frère.le
‘– Je regrette beaucoup pour Fran, dit le frère.’
13
9)
Evidential forms are conventionalized in the traditional
narratives (fairy tales, legends etc.) as basic forms of the
predicate.
10) Evidential forms are conventionalized in historical
discourse.
14
Structural availability
1)
Evidentials are used in non-echoic interrogative clauses.
There is a further distinction between
yes/no-questions:
Bulgarian
Takava li
bila
rabotata?
such
YES/NO be-PST.PTCP affair
‘Is that really so?’
wh-questions:
Albanian
Ku
qenka
mjeshtri? (Friedman 2003: 201)
where be-ADM.3SG boss-DEF
‘Where is the boss?’
15
2) Evidentials are used to express reported commands:
Bulgarian
Neka da
otideli
v
Sofia.
let
CONJ go-PST.PTCP
to
Sofia
‘Reportedly they should go to Sofia.’
16
3)
Evidential forms coincide with morphological mood:
Turkish
yazmalıymış
(Kononov 1956: 251)
write-DEB-PST.INDIR.3SG
‘Evidently/reportedly he has to write a letter.’
Latvian
Bûtuõt
labâk palikusi
te.
(Rudzīte 1984: 246)
be-COND-RM better stay-PST.PTCP there.
‘It is said that it would have been better to stay there.’
17
4) Evidentials fall in the scope of conditional:
Albanian (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 159)
…të
mos e paskish
thirrur, zoti
e di,
sa gjatë
CONJ NEG him have-ADM-3SG call-PTCP lord-DEF it
knows how long
do të
kishte
mbetur
ashtu.
FUT CONJ
have-PST-3SG remain-PTCP
that.way
‘If she had not called him, Lord knows how long he would have stayed
like that.’
18
Results
Legend: + the feature is present, (+) the feature is documented, but it
is not central to the category, is very unfrequent or is restricted only to
some dialects, – the feature is not present, ? no information available.
Formal parameters
EVIDENTIAL GRAM
TUR
BUL
MAC
ALB
LIT
LAT
EST
PAST PARTICIPLE
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
PRESENT PARTICIPLE
–
–
–
–
+
+
+
OTHER NOMINALIZATION
–
–
–
–
–
(+)
+
AUXILIARY ELLIPSIS
+
+
+
–
+
+
+
DEDICATED MORPHEME
–
–
–
+
–
+
+
DISTANCE PARTICLE
+
+
+
+
+
–
–
VOICE DISTINCTION
–
–
+
–
+
(+)
–
19
Semantic and pragmatic parameters
FUNCTION
TUR
BUL
MAC
ALB
LIT
LAT
EST
COVERS REPORTED EV.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
COVERS INFERENTIALITY
+
+
+
+
+
–
–
COVERS MIRATIVITY
+
+
+
+
+
–
–
TRIPARTITE DISTINCTION
WITH UNMARKED MEMBER
SUBTYPE OF EV. BEING
SPECIFIED
MARKS GENERIC
STATEMENTS
USED IN REPORTS OF
DREAMS
USED AS OBJECTIVIZER OF
SENSORY PERCEPTIONS
AND FEELINGS
CONV. IN FOLK NARRATIVES
+
–
+
–
–
–
–
(+)
(+)
(+)
–
+
–
–
–
–
–
+
–
–
–
+
+
+
?
(+)
–
–
–
–
–
+
–
–
–
+
+
+
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
–
(+)
(+)
+
–
–
–
CONV. IN HISTORICAL
DISCOURSE
20
Structural availability
SYNTAGM
TUR
BUL
MAC
ALB
LIT
LAT
EST
+
+
+
+
(+)
–
–
REPORTED COMMANDS
(+)
+
+
+
–
+
–
MORPHOLOGICAL MOOD
+
–
–
–
(+)
+
–
SCOPE OF CONDITIONAL
–
–
–
+
–
–
–
NON-ECHOIC QUESTIONS
21
Degree of similarity to Lithuanian
≥ 16 shared features
≥ 12 shared features
≥ 9 shared features
EST
LAT
LIT
BUL
MAC
ALB
TUR
22
Degree of similarity to Turkish
≥ 16 shared features
≥ 11 shared features
≥ 9 shared features
EST
LAT
LIT
BUL
MAC
ALB
TUR
23
Degree of similarity to Estonian
≥ 18 shared features
≥ 10 shared features
≥ 8 shared features
EST
LAT
LIT
BUL
MAC
ALB
TUR
24
Degree of similarity to Albanian
≥ 12 shared features
≥ 9 shared features
≥ 7 shared features
EST
LAT
LIT
BUL
MAC
ALB
TUR
25
clusters sharing 18 or more features
clusters sharing 16 or more features
EST
LAT
LIT
BUL
MAC
ALB
TUR
26
Conclusions
1)
The evidentiality system of Lithuanian stands typologically closer
to the Balkan systems (with the exception of the Albanian) than to
those of Latvian and Estonian.
2)
The evidentiality systems of Turkish, Bulgarian, Macedonian and
Lithuanian are prototypical representatives of the Euroasiatic type
of grammaticalized evidentiality. The rise of this type is probably
due to universal processing principles, e.g. the development from
perfective past to evidential.
3)
The evidentiality systems of Estonian, Latvian and Albanian are
the result of geographically restricted innovation.
4)
A closer look at the properties of the evidential systems allows us
to outline areas of affinity which are rather different from the
classical Sprachbunds.
27
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aikhenvald, A. 2004: Evidentiality. Oxford.
Buchholz, O, Fiedler, W. 1987: Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig.
Duchet, J.-L., Pernäska, R. 1996: L’admiratif albanais: recherche d’un invariant
sémantique. In Z. Guentchéva, éd., L’Énonciation médiatisée. Louvain – Paris, 31–
46.
Eintrei, T. I. 1982: Аlbanskij jazyk. Leningrad.
Friedman, V. A. 1986: Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and
Albanian. In W. Chafe, J. Nichols eds., Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of
Epistemology. Advances in Discourse Processes 20. Norwood, New Jersey, 168–187.
Friedman, V. A. 2003: Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to
Macedonian and Albanian. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon, eds., Studies in
Evidentiality. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam – Philadelphia, 189–
218.
Gronemeyer, C. 1997: Evidentiality in Lithuanian. In Working Papers 46. Lund
University, Department of Linguistics. Lund, 93–112 .
Johanson, L. 1998: Zum Kontakteinflu türkischer Indirektive. N. Demir, E. Taube
eds., Turkologie heute – Tradition und Perspektive. Veröffentlichungen der Societas
Uralo-Altaica 48. Wiesbaden, 141–150.
Kononov, A. N. 1956: Grammatika sovremennogo tureckogo jazyka. Moskva –
Leningrad.
Lindstedt, J. 2000a: The Perfect – Aspectual, Temporal and Evidential. Ö. Dahl ed.,
Tense and Aspect in the Languages in Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language
Typology, vol. 20, no. 6 = Eurotyp, no. 6. Berlin – New York, 365–383.
28
•
•
•
Meydan, M 1996: Les emplois médiatifs de -mış en Turc. In Z. Guentchéva, éd.,
L’Énonciation médiatisée. Louvain – Paris, 125–143.
Rudzīte, M 1964: Latviešu dialektoloģija. Rīga.
Slobin, D., Aksu, A. 1982: Tense Aspect and Modality in the Use of the Turkish
Evidential. P. J. Hopper ed., Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics.
Amsterdam – Philadephia, 185–200.
Abbreviations: ACC – accusative, ADM – admirative mood, ADV – adverb(ial), AOR –
aorist, COND – conditional mood, EV – evidential, DEB – debitive, DEF – definite, DEM
– demonstrative, CONJ – conjunctive, HAB – habere, INDIR – indirective, LOC –
locative, INE – inessive, IMPF – imperfect, NEG – negative, NT – neuter, PASS –
passive, PRS – present, PST – past, PTCP – participle, RM – renarrated mood, SG –
singular, 1 – first person, 2 – second person, 3 – third person
Language abbreviations: ABK – Abkhaz, ALB – Albanian, AROM – Aromanian, BSK –
Bashkir, BUL – Bulgarian, CHE – Chechen, EST – Estonian, GAG –Gagauz, GOD –
Godoberi, ING – Ingush, KAZ – Kazakh, LAT – Latvian, LIT – Lithuanian, LIV – Livonian,
MAC – Macedonian, MGLR – Megleno-Romanian, NOG – Noghai, CHV – Chuvash, TAT
– Tatar, TUR – Turkish, UDM – Udmurt
29