1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Volume 30, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

The paper provides evidence against the claim that perceptual access is commonly encoded in direct evidentials. While visual, auditory, tactile and olfactory perception are conveyed by direct evidentials in contexts where such interpretations are appropriate, in others it is the speaker’s involvement, affectedness and established beliefs which are conveyed. These may be exclusive to the speaker or shared by the addressee. Instead of information source, it is argued that some direct evidentials encode the speaker’s epistemic authority regarding an event based on their primary relation to the event. Epistemic authority concerns the speaker’s rights over knowledge and is therefore a relational concept that captures some of the dynamics between speech act participants in terms of knowledge representation and attribution. Support for this argument comes from the diachronic development of direct evidentials, the effects of co-distribution between direct evidentials and person marking (egophoricity), and patterns of use. Data comes from the literature on evidentiality and frequently cited languages from Tucanoan and Quechuan languages that feature well-described, rich evidential systems.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22006.ber
2023-06-27
2025-05-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.22006.ber
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/fol.22006.ber.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22006.ber&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2011 The grammaticalization of evidentiality. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 602–610. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0049
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0049 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2014 The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–50. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. (ed.) 2018 The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018 Evidentiality: The framework. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 1–46. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnes, Janet
    1984 Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics501. 255–71. 10.1086/465835
     https://doi.org/10.1086/465835 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergqvist, Henrik
    2018a The role of sentence type in Ika (Arwako) egophoric marking. InSimeon Floyd Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 347–375. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118.11ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.11ber [Google Scholar]
  8. 2018b Evidentiality as stance: Event types and speaker roles. InAd Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.), Evidence for Evidentiality, 19–43. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.61.02ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.02ber [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergqvist, Henrik & Seppo Kittilä
    2017 Person and knowledge: Introduction. Open Linguistics31. 18–30. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0002 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2020 Epistemic perspectives: Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement. InHenrik Bergqvist & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement [Studies in Diversity Linguistics]. Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergqvist, Henrik & Dominique Knuchel
    2017 Complexity in egophoric marking: From agents to attitude holders. Open Linguistics31. 359–377. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0018 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2019 Explorations of engagement: Introduction. Open Linguistics5(1). 650–665. 10.1515/opli‑2019‑0036
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0036 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bergqvist, Henrik & K. Grzech
    2023 The role of pragmatics for the definition of evidentiality. STUF – Language Typology and Universals67(1). 1–30. 10.1515/stuf‑2023‑2004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2023-2004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    (eds.) 1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Chafe, Wallace
    (ed.) 1980 The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood N.J.: Ablex Pub.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Creissels, Denis
    2008 Person variation in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. STUF – Language Typology and Universals61(4). 309–325. 10.1524/stuf.2008.0027
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2008.0027 [Google Scholar]
  17. Curnow, J. Timothy
    2002 Types of interaction between evidentials and first-person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics44(2). 178–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2003 Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language27(1). 39–59. 10.1075/sl.27.1.03cur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.1.03cur [Google Scholar]
  19. Dahl, Östen
    2000 Egophoricity in discourse and grammar. Functions of Language7(1). 37–77. 10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah [Google Scholar]
  20. Dendale, Patrick & Liliane Tasmowski
    2001 Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics33(3). 339–348. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00005‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00005-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. de Haan, Ferdinand
    2001 The cognitive basis of visual evidentials. InAlan Cienki, Barbara J. Luka & Michael B. Smith (eds), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure, 91–106. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. De Lancey, Scott
    1990 Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics1(3). 289–322. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289 [Google Scholar]
  23. Diewald, Gabriele
    2011 Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 450–461. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0036
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0036 [Google Scholar]
  24. Donabédian, Anaïd
    2001 Towards a semasiological account of evidentials: An enunciative approach of -er in Modern Western Armenian. Journal of Pragmatics331. 421–442. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00011‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00011-4 [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans, Nicholas R., Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque
    2018a The grammar of engagement I: Framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition101. 110–140. 10.1017/langcog.2017.21
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.21 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2018b The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition101. 141–170. 10.1017/langcog.2017.22
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.22 [Google Scholar]
  27. Faller, Martina
    2002a Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2002b Remarks on evidential hierarchies. InDavid I. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The Construction of Meaning, 37–59. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque
    2018 Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118 [Google Scholar]
  30. Friedman, Victor A.
    2018 Where do evidentials come from?InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 124–150. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.6
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.6 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gordon, Lynn
    1986 The development of evidentials in Maricopa. InWallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 75–88. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Grzech, Karolina
    2016 Discourse enclitics in Tena Kichwa: A corpus-based account of information structure and epistemic meaning. London: SOAS University of London PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2020 Managing Common Ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evidential’ markers in Upper Napo Kichwa and their functions in interaction, Journal of Pragmatics1681. 81–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hale, Austin
    1980 Person markers: finite conjunct and disjunct forms in Newari. InRoland Trail (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics71, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hanks, William F.
    2012 Foreword: Evidentiality in social interaction. Pragmatics and Society3(2). 169–180. 10.1075/ps.3.2.02for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.3.2.02for [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014 Evidentiality in social interaction. InJanis B. Nuckolls & Lev Michael (eds.) Evidentiality in Interaction, 1–12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.63.02for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.63.02for [Google Scholar]
  37. Hargreaves, David
    2005 Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics51. 1–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Heine, Bernd
    2003 Grammaticalization. InBrian D. Joseph, & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch18
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  39. Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog
    (eds.) 2011 The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hengeveld, Kees & Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher
    2015 Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics53(3). 479–524. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0010 [Google Scholar]
  41. Heritage, John
    2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction451. 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  42. Heritage, John, & Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly68(1). 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hintz, Daniel J. & Diane M. Hintz
    2017 The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua186/1871. 88–109. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kalsang, Jay Garfield, Margaret Speas & Jill de Villiers
    2013 Direct evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan: Evidence for a general theory of the semantics of evidential. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory31(2). 517–561. 10.1007/s11049‑013‑9193‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9193-9 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kamio, Akio
    1997 Territories of information. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.48
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lehmann, Christian
    2012 Speech-act participants in modality. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Discourse & Grammar, University of Ghent, 23–24 May 2008. www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_modality.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Malone, Terrell
    1988 The origin and development of Tuyuca evidentials. International Journal of American Linguistics54(2). 119–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Matlock, Teenie
    1989 Metaphor and the grammaticalization of evidentials. InProceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215–225. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v15i0.1751
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v15i0.1751 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mushin, Ilana
    2001 Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.87
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2013 Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies15(5). 627–45. 10.1177/1461445613501447
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501447 [Google Scholar]
  52. Nuckolls, Janis & Lev Michael
    (eds.) 2014 Evidentiality in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.63
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.63 [Google Scholar]
  53. Palmer, F. R.
    2001 Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  54. Quartararo, Geraldine
    2017 Evidencialidad indirecta en aimara y en el español de La Paz: Un studio semántico-pragmatico de textos orales. Stockholm: Stockholm University PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. San Roque, Lila
    2019 Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology48(1). 353–370. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑102218‑011243
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011243 [Google Scholar]
  56. San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane
    2012 The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology161. 111–167. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0003 [Google Scholar]
  57. San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2017 Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua186/1871. 120–143. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schlichter, Alice
    1986 The origin and deictic nature of Wintu evidentials. InWallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 46–59. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Silva, Wilson & Scott AnderBois
    2016 Fieldwork game play: Masterminding evidentiality in Desano. Language Documentation & Conservation101. 58–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Stenzel, Kristine
    2008 Evidentials and clause modality in Wanano. Studies in Language32(2). 405–445. 10.1075/sl.32.2.06ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.2.06ste [Google Scholar]
  61. Sun, Jackson T-S.
    2018 Evidentiality and person. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 47–63. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.2
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.2 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sweetser, Eve
    1984 Semantic structure and semantic change: A cognitive linguistic study of modality, perception, speech acts, and logical relations. Berkeley: CA: University of California, Berkeley PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tournadre, Nicholas & Randy La Polla
    2014 Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 37(2). 240–263. 10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.37.2.04tou [Google Scholar]
  65. Viberg, Åke
    1983 The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics21(1). 123–162. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  66. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language12(1). 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  67. Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp
    2017 The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language41(1). 33–75. 10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.1.02wid [Google Scholar]
  68. Zeisler, Bettina
    2016 Evidentiality, inferentiality, and speaker’s attitude: Questionnaire or exemplary set. Universität Tübingen manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Ziegeler, Debra
    2016 The diachrony of modality and mood. InJan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22006.ber
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): epistemic authority; evidentiality; grammaticalization; pragmatics

Most Cited

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