four types of evidentiality
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Four types of evidentiality

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 59

Four types of evidentiality - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 123 Views
  • Uploaded on

Four types of evidentiality . Kees Hengeveld Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher. Introduction. A hierarchical approach to grammatical categories has proven to be useful in the domain of TMA Such an approach has not been applied to evidentiality

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Four types of evidentiality' - varian


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
four types of evidentiality

Four types of evidentiality

Kees Hengeveld

Marize MattosDall’Aglio Hattnher

introduction
Introduction

A hierarchical approach to grammatical categories has proven to be useful in the domain of TMA

Such an approach has not been applied to evidentiality

This paper offers such an approach and studies the predictions that follow from it in a sample of native languages of Brazil

2

introduction1
Introduction

The sample consists of 64 languages out of the 226 extant and extinct native languages of Brazil

It contains languages from 15 out of the 20 major genetic groupings

Of the 64 sample languages 34 have at least one evidential subcategory

3

contents
Contents

1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar

2. Evidentiality in Functional Discourse Grammar

3. The co-existence of evidential subcategories

4. The co-occurrence of evidential subcategories

5. Conclusions

4

layering
Layering

Hidatsa (Matthews 1965)

Wíra i ápáari ki stao ski.

tree it grow INGR REM.PST CERT

‘The tree must have begun to grow a long time ago.’

certainty (remote past (ingressive (predicate+arguments)))

6

grammaticalization
Grammaticalization

Within a level, TMA categories start out at the lowest layer and gradually expand their scope moving to higher layers

Across levels, TMA categories may move up at any point from the representational to the interpersonal level

four types of evidentiality1
Four types of evidentiality

Reportativity

Inference

Deduction

Event Perception

reportativity
Reportativity

Reportativity distinctions indicate that the speaker is not expressing his/her own cognitive material, but is passing on the opinions of others.

This means that reportativity operates at the layer of the communicated content at the Interpersonal Level: the message content contained in a discourse act is characterized as transmitted rather than originally produced.

reportativity2
Reportativity

Lakondê (Telles & Wetzels 2006: 240)

Ta\'wḛn \'teh-\'naw ta-\'a̰jh-wi-setaw-\'tãn’.

woods path-LOC DIR-walk-1.DU-REP-IMPF

‘Let’s walk to the path in the woods, someone told me.’

inference
Inference

The speaker infers a certain piece of information on the basis of his/her own existing knowledge.

It operates at the layer of the propositional content at the Representational Level. This layer deals with mental constructs as represented in the speakers’s brain.

inference2
Inference

Karo (Gabas 2004: 269)

Aʔ=ket-t memã.

3.SG=sleep-IND INFER

‘I suppose he is sleeping.’

deduction
Deduction

The speaker deduces the information he/she presents from perceptual evidence.

Deduction necessarily involves two states-of-affairs: the perceived one and the deduced one: the speaker deduces the occurrence of one state-of-affairs on the basis of another.

Deduction therefore operates at the layer of the Episode.

deduction2
Deduction

Tariana (Aikhenvald 2003: 288)

Tʃinu niwhã-nihka di-na.

dog 3.SG.NF.bite-REC.PST.DED 3.SG.NF-OBJ

‘The dog bit him (I can see obvious signs).’

event perception
Event perception

The speaker witnessed the event directly through one of the senses.

Event perception operates at the layer of the state-of-affairs, as it is this state-of-affairs that is directly perceived.

event perception2
Event perception

Lakondê (Telles & Wetzels 2006: 246, 247)

Wi-\'hat-ø-\'tãn-\'ti.

eat-not.have-3.SG-IMPF-PST.PERC.VIS

‘He did not eat.’ (I saw it)

\'Wa̰ja hejn-ka-ta-\'tãwn

you.PL wash-BEN-1.OBJ-CMPL

\'pat-\'tãna-si.

leave.2.SG.IMPF-PERC.NONVIS

‘You have washed (something) for me.’ (I heard the sound coming from the river)’

four types of evidentiality2
Four types of evidentiality

C: Reportativity

p: Inference

ep: Deduction

e: Event Perception

distinguishing features
Distinguishing features

Combinability with behavioural illocutions

Hup (Epps 2008: 655-656)

yɔ́-ɔ̃́=mah.

fear-DYN=REP

‘(He’s) scared, he says.’

nǽn=mah!

come=REP

‘Come here, she said!’

distinguishing features1
Distinguishing features

Interaction with absolute and relative tense:

I infer that he is/has been/had been smoking

I smell that he is/has been/*had been smoking

I see him smoking/*having been smoking

prediction
Prediction

There is an implicational relationship between evidential meanings present in a language according to the following evidentiality hierarchy:

event perception ⊂ deduction ⊂ inference

This follows from the FDG view on grammaticalization

desano
Desano

Desano (Miller 1999: 65-68)

Reportativity:

Bãdu yɨ tĩgɨ-re paa-pɨ.

Manuel 1.SG brother-SPEC hit-REP.3.M.SG

‘Manuel hit my older brother (it is said).’

Inference:

Bɨ̃ʔɨ̃ yoaro-ge aʔhra-y-a.

2.SG far-LOC come-DED-NON3

‘You have come a long way (it appears).’

desano1
Desano

Desano (Miller 1999: 65-68)

Deduction:

Pisadã wai-re ba-di-gɨ árĩ-bĩ̃.

cat fish-SPEC eat-PST-M.SG be-DED.3.M.SG

‘The cat must have eaten the fish.’ (you can see his paw marks on the ground where he ate it).

Event Perception:

Gɨa õ-ge-re era-bɨ.

1.PL.EXCL here-LOC-SPEC arrive-NON3.PERC.PST

‘We arrive here.’

comparison1
Comparison

Willett (1988)

attested ⊂ reported ⊂ inferring

comparison2
Comparison

De Haan (1998)

visual ⊂ non-visual ⊂ inferential ⊂ quotative

comparison3
Comparison

Faller (2002)

prediction1
Prediction

If it is true that evidentiality is not one category but actually covers four different subcategories applying at different layers of grammatical structure, we expect it to be possible for two or more evidential expressions from different subcategories to co-occur in a single expression.

co occurrence 4 subcategories
Co-occurrence (4 subcategories)

I hear (from A) that A inferred on the basis of his existing knowledge that B deduced from visual evidence that C had been smoking, something that B did not witness directly.

reportative inference
Reportative + Inference

Yuhup (Bozzi 2002:183)

̱ɟidɘ̌h ̃ɟàbmcɨ ́ ̠̄̄dí ̄bàh

3.PL dance INFER REP

‘It seems they dance, it is said.’

reportative deduction
Reportative + Deduction

Hup (Epps 2008: 658)

Hup pã̌=cud=mah

person NEG.EX=DED=REP

‘There was apparently nobody there, it’s said.’

reportative event perception
Reportative + Event Perception

Sabanê (Araújo 2004: 54)

waylypi.maysili-ka kan-n-tiaka-dana

cat.younglings-OBJ die-VS-REP-PERC

‘Somebody said that the kitten died.’

inference deduction
Inference + Deduction

Karo (Gabas 1999: 277)

péŋ aʔ=wĩ-n aket memã

white.man 3.SG=kill-IND DED INFER

‘The white man must have supposedly killed it/him.’

inference event perception
Inference + Event Perception

Wanano (Stenzel 2004: 103)

Bora-~su̵-ka wa’a-ro

fall.down-COMPL-AFFEC go-NMZR

koa-ta-a.

PERC.NONVIS-come-INFER.PF

‘He fell right down.’

deduction event perception
Deduction + Event Perception

Wanano (Stenzel 2004:358)

a\'yoo tipa-wa-ri

Oh! be.flat-become-NMZR.DED

hi-ra

COP-PERC.VIS.IMPF.NON1

‘Oh! This one’s (been) flattened.’

conclusions
Conclusions

A sharp line should be drawn between reportativity on the one hand, and event perception, deduction, and inference on the other.

The latter three sub-categories enter into an implicational hierarchy, while reportativity forms a sub-category in its own right.

conclusions1
Conclusions

Our classification and hierarchy make correct predictions about the co-existence and co-occurrence of evidential sub-categories.

Our hierarchy makes better predictions than existing ones, as a result of the separation of reportativity from all other sub-categories of evidentiality.

ad