7.4 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiality | 2/4 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:56:06.594635+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== Indirectivity (type I) === Indirectivity (also known as inferentiality) systems are common in Uralic and Turkic languages. These languages indicate whether evidence exists for a given source of information; thus, they contrast direct information (reported directly) and indirect information (reported indirectly, focusing on its reception by the speaker/recipient). Unlike the other evidential "type II" systems, an indirectivity marking does not indicate information about the source of knowledge: it is irrelevant whether the information results from hearsay, inference, or perception; however, some Turkic languages distinguish between reported indirect and non-reported indirect, see Johanson 2003, 2000 for further elaboration. This can be seen in the following Turkish verbs:
In the word geldi, the unmarked suffix -di indicates past tense. In the second word gelmiş, the suffix -miş also indicates past tense but indirectly. It may be translated into English with the added phrases 'obviously', 'apparently' or 'as far as I understand'. The direct past tense marker -di is unmarked (or neutral) in the sense that whether or not evidence exists supporting the statement is not specified.
=== Evidentiality (type II) === The other broad type of evidentiality systems ("type II") specifies the nature of the evidence supporting a statement. These kinds of evidence can be divided into such categories as:
Sensory Visual Non-visual Inferential Assumed Reportative Hearsay Quotative Sensory evidentials can often be divided into different types. Some languages mark visual evidence differently from nonvisual evidence that is heard, smelled, or felt. The Kashaya language has a separate auditory evidential. An inferential evidential indicates information was not personally experienced but was inferred from indirect evidence. Some languages have different types of inferential evidentials. Some of the inferentials found indicate:
Information inferred by direct physical evidence Information inferred by general knowledge Information inferred/assumed because of speaker's experience with similar situations Past deferred realization In many cases, different inferential evidentials also indicate epistemic modality, such as uncertainty or probability (see epistemic modality below). For example, one evidential may indicate that the information is inferred but of uncertain validity, while another indicates that the information is inferred but unlikely to be true. Reportative evidentials indicate that the information was reported to the speaker by another person. A few languages distinguish between hearsay evidentials and quotative evidentials. Hearsay indicates reported information that may or may not be accurate. A quotative indicates the information is accurate and not open to interpretation, i.e., is a direct quotation. An example of a reportative from Shipibo (-ronki):
==== Typology of evidentiality systems ==== The following is a brief survey of evidential systems found in the languages of the world as identified in Aikhenvald (2004). Some languages only have two evidential markers while others may have six or more. The system types are organized by the number of evidentials found in the language. For example, a two-term system (A) will have two different evidential markers; a three-term system (B) will have three different evidentials. The systems are further divided by the type of evidentiality that is indicated (e.g. A1, A2, A3, etc.). Languages that exemplify each type are listed in parentheses. The most common system found is the A3 type. Two-term systems:
A1. witness, nonwitness (e.g. Jarawara, Yukaghir languages, Mỹky, Godoberi, Kalasha-mun, Khowar, Yanam) A2. nonfirsthand, everything else (e.g. Abkhaz, Mansi, Khanty, Nenets, Enets, Selkup, Northeast Caucasian languages) A3. reported, everything else (e.g. Turkic languages, Tamil, Enga, Tauya, Lezgian, Kham, Estonian, Livonian, Tibeto-Burman languages, several South American languages) Three-term systems:
B1. visual sensory, inferential, reportative (e.g. Aymara, Shastan languages, Qiang languages, Maidu, most Quechuan languages, Northern Embera languages) B2. visual sensory, nonvisual sensory, inferential (e.g. Washo) B3. nonvisual sensory, inferential, reportative (e.g. Retuarã, Northern Pomo) B4. witness (direct), nonwitness (indirect), inferential, reportative (e.g. Tsezic and Dagestanian languages) Four-term systems:
C1. visual sensory, nonvisual sensory, inferential, reportative (e.g. Tariana, Xamatauteri, Eastern Pomo, East Tucanoan languages) C2. visual sensory, inferential #1, inferential #2, reportative (e.g. Tsafiki, Pawnee, Ancash Quechua) C3. nonvisual sensory, inferential #1, inferential #2, reportative (e.g. Wintu) C4. visual sensory, inferential, reportative #1, reportative #2 (e.g. Southeastern Tepehuan) C5. witness (non-subjective, non-renarrative), inferential (subjective, non-renarrative), renarrative (non-subjective, renarrative), dubitative (subjective, renarrative) (e.g. Bulgarian) Five-plus term systems:
visual sensory, nonvisual sensory, inferential, reportative, assumed (e.g. Tuyuca, Tucano) witness, inferential, reportative, assumed, "internal support" (e.g. Nambikwaran languages) visual sensory, nonvisual sensory, inferential, reported, heard from known source, direct participation (e.g. Fasu) nonvisual sensory, inferential #1, inferential #2, inferential #3, reportative (e.g. Western Apache) inferential, anticipation, performative, deduction, induction, hearsay, direct observation, opinion, assumed, "to know by culture", "to know by internal" (Lojban)
== Evidentiality marking and other categories == Evidential systems in many languages are often marked simultaneously with other linguistic categories. For example, according to Aikhenvald, a given language may use the same element to mark both evidentiality and mirativity, i.e., unexpected information. She claims that this is the case of Western Apache where the post-verbal particle lą̄ą̄ primarily functions as a mirative but also has a secondary function as an inferential evidential. This phenomenon of evidentials developing secondary functions, or other grammatical elements such as miratives and modal verbs developing evidential functions is fairly widespread. The following types of mixed systems have been reported:
evidentiality with mirativity evidentiality with tense-aspect evidentiality with modality (this is discussed in the next section below) In addition to the interactions with tense, modality, and mirativity, the usage of evidentials in some languages may also depend on the clause type, discourse structure, and/or linguistic genre. However, despite the intersection of evidentiality systems with other semantic or pragmatic systems (through grammatical categories), Aikhenvald believes that several languages do mark evidentiality without any grammatical connection to these other semantic/pragmatic systems. More explicitly stated, she believes that there are modal systems which do not express evidentiality, and evidential systems which do not express modality. Likewise, there are mirative systems which do not express evidentiality, and evidential systems which do not express mirativity. Aside from those, egophoricity may interact with evidentiality as well.