Volume 29 Number 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Two kinds of meanings are usually associated to the Basque particle bide.1 On the one hand, it has been taken to point to the indirect nature of the speaker’s evidence for the truth of the proposition put forward. According to this view, it would be a sort of inferential particle. On the other hand, bide has been associated to the expression of a certain degree of belief or certainty on the truth of the proposition. This double dimension of bide resembles various aspects of the meaning and use of another Basque particle – omen. The morpho-syntactic behaviour of these two particles is practically identical, and their semantics and pragmatics invite a close comparison. Thus, starting from our conclusions regarding omen, we explore the similarities and differences between both particles. We find two main differences. First, bide encodes a doxastic dimension that is absent from the semantic meaning of omen. And, second, bide can be taken to be an illocutionary force indicator that does not contribute to the proposition expressed, while omen does contribute to the truth-conditions of the utterance.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alcázar, Asier
    2009Subjectification in Basque evidential particles. Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boye, Kasper
    2010 “Semantic maps and the identification of cross-linguistic generic categories: Evidentiality and its relation to epistemic modality.” Linguistic discovery8 (1): 4–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2012Epistemic meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219036 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chafe, Wallace
    1986 “Evidentiality in English conversation and academic Writing.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Volume XX in the Series Advances in Discourse Processes, ed. by Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols , 261–272. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation Norwood.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cornillie, Bert
    2009 “Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories.” Functions of Language16 (1): 44–62. doi: 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  6. Elhuyar-Elkar
    1994Euskal hiztegi modernoa. Donostia: Elhuyar-Elkar.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Euskaltzaindia
    1987Euskal Gramatika. Lehen Urratsak II. Bilbao.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Faller, Martina T
    2002Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford: Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Faller, Martina
    2006“Evidentiality below and above speech acts.”Manchester: University of Manchester, ms. Online: personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/martina.t.faller/documents/Evidentiality.Above.Below.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2012 “Evidential scalar implicatures.” Linguistics and Philosophy35: 285–312. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑012‑9119‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9119-8 [Google Scholar]
  11. Grice, Paul
    1961 “The causal theory of perception.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary volumes35: 121–152. doi: 10.1093/aristoteliansupp/35.1.121
    https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/35.1.121 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1967a “Logic and conversation.” In: Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman (eds.) (1975), The Logic of Grammar, 64–75. Encino: Dickenson. Also published in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) (1975), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Paul Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Words, 22–40. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1967b “Further notes on logic and conversation.” In: Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole (1978), 113–128. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words, ed. by Paul Grice (1989), 41–57. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jendraschek, Gerd
    2003La Modalité Épistémique en Basque. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Korta, Kepa and Larraitz Zubeldia
    2014 “The contribution of evidentials to utterance content: Evidence from the Basque reportative particle omen .” Language90 (2): 389–423. doi: 10.1353/lan.2014.0024
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0024 [Google Scholar]
  16. Marín-Arrese, Juana I
    2015 “Epistemicity and stance: A crosslinguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish.” Discourse Studies17 (2): 210–225. doi: 10.1177/1461445614564523
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614564523 [Google Scholar]
  17. Matlock, Teenie
    1989 “Metaphor and the grammaticalization of evidentials.” Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society15: 215–225. doi: 10.3765/bls.v15i0.1751
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v15i0.1751 [Google Scholar]
  18. Matthewson, Lisa
    2012 “Evidence about evidentials: Where fieldwork meets theory.” InEmpirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies in meaning and structure, ed. by Britta Stolterfoht and Sam Featherston , 85–114. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Matthewson, Lisa , Henry Davis and Hotze Rullmann
    2007 “Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook7: 201–54. doi: 10.1075/livy.7.07mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.7.07mat [Google Scholar]
  20. McCready, Eric and Norry Ogata
    2007 “Evidentiality, modality and probability.” Linguistics and Philosophy30: 147–206. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑007‑9017‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-007-9017-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Morris, Mikel
    1998Morris student plus. Euskara-ingelesa, english-basque. Donostia: Klaudio Harluxet Fundazioa. www1.euskadi.net/morris/
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Murray, Sarah
    2010Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Levinson, Stephen C
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2000Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Novia de Salcedo, Pedro
    1887Diccionario Etimológico del Idioma Bascongado. Tolosa: Eusebio López.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Orpustan, Jean-Baptiste
    1993Oihenarten Hiztegia. Lexique Basque des Proverbes et Poésies d’Oyhenart Traduit en Français et Espagnol / par Jean-Baptiste Orpustan. Baigorri: Izpegi.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rijk, Rudolf P.G. de
    2008Standard Basque: a Progressive Grammar. Vol. 1: The grammar. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sauerland, Uli and Mathias Schenner
    2007 “Shifting evidentials in Bulgarian.” Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung11: 525–539.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Schenner, Mathias
    2008 “Double face evidentials in German: Reportative sollen and wollen in embedded contexts.”InProceedings of SuB12, ed. by Atle Grønn , 552–566. Oslo: University of Oslo.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Searle, John and Daniel Vanderveken
    1985Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. van der Auwera, Johan and Vladimir A. Plungian
    1998 “Modality’s semantic map.” Linguistic typology2: 79–123. doi: 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 [Google Scholar]
  32. Vanderveken, Daniel
    1990Meaning and speech acts. Vol. 1. Principles of language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. van Eys, Willem J
    1873Dictionnaire Basque-Français. Paris: Maisonneuve; London: Williams and Norgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Waldie, Ryan , Tyler Peterson , Hotze Rullmann and Scott Mackie
    2009 “Evidentials as epistemic modals or speech act operators: Testing the tests”. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of Languages of the Americas 14 , Purdue University.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wiemer, Björn and Veronika Kampf
    This issue “On conditions instantiating tip effects of epistemic and evidential meanings in Bulgarian.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 29.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Wiemer, Björn and Anna Socka
    2010 “How to do contrastive semantics with propositional modifiers: The case of hearsay adverbs.” Paper presented at the symposium “Re-thinking synonymy: semantic sameness and similarity in languages and their description” , Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Willett, Thomas
    1988 “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality.” Studies in language12: 51–97. doi: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  38. Zubeldia, Larraitz
    2010‘Omen’ partikularen azterketa semantikoa eta pragmatikoa. PhD dissertation. University of the Basque Country.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013 “(Non-)determining the original speaker: reportative particles versus reportative verbs.” Research in Language11 (2): 103–130. doi: 10.2478/v10015‑012‑0014‑8
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-012-0014-8 [Google Scholar]
  40. Basque Institute of UPV/EHU
    : Ereduzko Prosa Gaur [Contemporary Reference Prose]: www.ehu.es/euskara-orria/euskara/ereduzkoa/.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Iturriaga, Unai
    1999Berandu da gelditzeko. Zarautz; Iruñea: Susa.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Jimenez, Edorta
    2004Sukar ustelaren urtea. Tafalla: Txapalarta.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mendiguren Elizegi, Xabier
    200216 ipuin amodiozko. Zarautz: Susa.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sartre, Jean-Paul
    1938La nausée. Paris: Editions Gallimard. (Translation: Monika Etxebarria. 2003. Goragalea. Donostia: Alberdania-Elkar)
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): (un)certainty/probability; Basque; conversational implicature; evidential; particle
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error