1 / 59

Four types of evidentiality

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

varian
Download Presentation

Four types of evidentiality

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Four types of evidentiality Kees Hengeveld Marize MattosDall’Aglio Hattnher

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar

  6. 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

  7. Layers 7

  8. TMA categories

  9. 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

  10. Grammaticalization 10

  11. 2. Evidentiality in Functional Discourse Grammar

  12. Four types of evidentiality Reportativity Inference Deduction Event Perception

  13. 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.

  14. Reportativity 14

  15. 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.’

  16. 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.

  17. Inference 17

  18. Inference Karo (Gabas 2004: 269) Aʔ=ket-t memã. 3.SG=sleep-IND INFER ‘I suppose he is sleeping.’

  19. 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.

  20. Deduction 20

  21. 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).’

  22. 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.

  23. Event perception 23

  24. 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)’

  25. Four types of evidentiality C: Reportativity p: Inference ep: Deduction e: Event Perception

  26. 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!’

  27. 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

  28. Distinguishing features

  29. Evidentiality in FDG

  30. Evidentiality in FDG

  31. Evidentiality in FDG

  32. Evidentiality in FDG

  33. Evidentiality in FDG

  34. Comparison

  35. 3. The co-existence of evidential subcategories

  36. 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

  37. Results (qualitative)

  38. Results (qualitative)

  39. Results (qualitative)

  40. 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).’

  41. 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.’

  42. Results (quantitative)

  43. Comparison Willett (1988) attested ⊂ reported ⊂ inferring

  44. Comparison De Haan (1998) visual ⊂ non-visual ⊂ inferential ⊂ quotative

  45. Comparison Faller (2002)

  46. 4. The co-occurrence of evidential subcategories

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. Co-occurrence (2 subcategories)

  50. Reportative + Inference Yuhup (Bozzi 2002:183) ̱ɟidɘ̌h ̃ɟàbmcɨ ́ ̠̄̄dí ̄bàh 3.PL dance INFER REP ‘It seems they dance, it is said.’

More Related