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

2. 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. 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. 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. 5 1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar

6. 6 Layering Hidatsa (Matthews 1965) Wíraiápáarikistaoski. treeitgrowINGRREM.PSTCERT ‘The tree must have begun to grow a long time ago.’ certainty (remote past (ingressive (predicate+arguments))) 6

7. 7 Layers 7 Interpersonal Level Discourse Act > Illocution >Communicated Content ∨ Representational Level Proposi -tion >Episode >State-of- Affairs >Situational Concept

8. 8 TMA categories Interpersonal Level discourse actillocutioncommunicated content Moodbasic illocution Representatio- nal Level propositional Content episodestate-of-affairssituational concept Aspectevent quantification phasal aspect Tenseabsolute tenserelative tense Moodsubjective epistemic modality objective epistemic modality event-oriented modality participant- oriented modality

9. 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. 10 Grammaticalization 10 Interpersonal Level Discourse Act ← Illocution ←Communicated Content ↑ Representational Level Proposi -tion ←Episode←State-of- Affairs ←Situational Concept

11. 2. Evidentiality in Functional Discourse Grammar

12. 12 Four types of evidentiality Reportativity Inference Deduction Event Perception

13. 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. 14 Reportativity 14 Interpersonal Level Discourse Act > Illocution >Communicated Content ∨ Representational Level Proposi -tion >Episode >State-of- Affairs >Situational Concept

15. 15 Reportativity Lakondê (Telles & Wetzels 2006: 240) Ta'w ḛ n 'teh-'nawta-'a̰jh-wi-setaw-'tãn’. woodspath-LOCDIR-walk-1.DU-REP-IMPF ‘Let’s walk to the path in the woods, someone told me.’

16. 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. 17 Inference 17 Interpersonal Level Discourse Act > Illocution >Communicated Content ∨ Representational Level Proposi -tion >Episode >State-of- Affairs >Situational Concept

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

19. 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. 20 Deduction 20 Interpersonal Level Discourse Act > Illocution >Communicated Content ∨ Representational Level Proposi -tion >Episode >State-of- Affairs >Situational Concept

21. 21 Deduction Tariana (Aikhenvald 2003: 288) Tʃinuniwhã-nihka di-na. dog3.SG.NF.bite-REC.PST.DED3.SG.NF-OBJ ‘The dog bit him (I can see obvious signs).’

22. 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. 23 Event perception 23 Interpersonal Level Discourse Act > Illocution >Communicated Content ∨ Representational Level Proposi -tion >Episode >State-of- Affairs >Situational Concept

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

26. 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. 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. 28 Distinguishing features Criterion Evidential Subcategory Combines with behavioural illocutions Takes absolute tense within its scope Takes relative tense within its scope Reportativity+++ Inference-++ Deduction--+ Event Perception---

29. 29 Evidentiality in FDG Interpersonal Level discourse actillocutioncommunicated content Moodbasic illocution Evidentialityreportativity Representatio- nal Level propositional Content episodestate-of-affairssituational concept Aspectevent quantification phasal aspect Tenseabsolute tenserelative tense Evidentialityinferencedeductionevent perception Moodsubjective epistemic modality objective epistemic modality event-oriented modality participant- oriented modality

30. 30 Evidentiality in FDG Interpersonal Level discourse actillocutioncommunicated content Moodbasic illocution Evidentialityreportativity Representatio- nal Level propositional Content episodestate-of-affairssituational concept Aspectevent quantification phasal aspect Tenseabsolute tenserelative tense Evidentialityinferencedeductionevent perception Moodsubjective epistemic modality objective epistemic modality event-oriented modality participant- oriented modality

31. 31 Evidentiality in FDG Interpersonal Level discourse actillocutioncommunicated content Moodbasic illocution Evidentialityreportativity Representatio- nal Level propositional Content episodestate-of-affairssituational concept Aspectevent quantification phasal aspect Tenseabsolute tenserelative tense Evidentialityinferencedeductionevent perception Moodsubjective epistemic modality objective epistemic modality event-oriented modality participant- oriented modality

32. 32 Evidentiality in FDG Interpersonal Level discourse actillocutioncommunicated content Moodbasic illocution Evidentialityreportativity Representatio- nal Level propositional Content episodestate-of-affairssituational concept Aspectevent quantification phasal aspect Tenseabsolute tenserelative tense Evidentialityinferencedeductionevent perception Moodsubjective epistemic modality objective epistemic modality event-oriented modality participant- oriented modality

33. 33 Evidentiality in FDG Interpersonal Level discourse actillocutioncommunicated content Moodbasic illocution Evidentialityreportativity Representatio- nal Level propositional Content episodestate-of-affairssituational concept Aspectevent quantification phasal aspect Tenseabsolute tenserelative tense Evidentialityinferencedeductionevent perception Moodsubjective epistemic modality objective epistemic modality event-oriented modality participant- oriented modality

34. 34 Comparison SourceClassification of evidential categories This paperRepresentationalInterpersonal Event PerceptionDeductionInferenceReportativity Willett (1988)DirectIndirect InferringReported De Haan (1998)DirectIndirect InferentialQuotative Plungian (2010)DirectIndirect InferentialPresumptiveReportative San Roque & Loughnane (2012) DirectIndirect ResultsReasoningReported

35. 3. The co-existence of evidential subcategories

36. 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. 37 Results (qualitative) LevelRepresentationalInterpersonal# lgs in sample Evidential system Event perception DeductionInferenceReportativity 1a++++12 1b+++-2 2a++–+9 2b++––0 3a+––+4 3b+–––0 4a–––+7 4b––––30 Total64

38. 38 Results (qualitative) LevelRepresentationalInterpersonal# lgs in sample Evidential system Event perception DeductionInferenceReportativity 1+++(+)14 2++–(+)9 3+–– 4 4––– 37 Total64

39. 39 Results (qualitative) LevelRepresentationalInterpersonal# lgs in sample Evidential system Event perception DeductionInferenceReportativity *-++(+)0 *+-+ 0 *-–+ 0 *–+– 0 Total0

40. 40 Desano Desano (Miller 1999: 65-68) Reportativity: Bãdu yɨ tĩgɨ-re paa-pɨ. Manuel1.SGbrother-SPEChit-REP.3.M.SG ‘Manuel hit my older brother (it is said).’ Inference: Bɨ̃ʔɨ̃ yoaro-geaʔhra-y-a. 2.SGfar-LOCcome-DED-NON3 ‘You have come a long way (it appears).’

41. 41 Desano Desano (Miller 1999: 65-68) Deduction: Pisadã wai-re ba-di-gɨ árĩ-bĩ̃. catfish-SPECeat-PST-M.SGbe-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: Gɨaõ-ge-re era-bɨ. 1.PL.EXCLhere-LOC-SPECarrive-NON3.PERC.PST ‘We arrive here.’

42. 42 Results (quantitative) LevelRepresentationalInterpersonal EvidentialEvent perception DeductionInferenceReportativity # lgs with subdistinctions 10305

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

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

45. 45 Comparison Faller (2002)

46. 4. The co-occurrence of evidential subcategories

47. 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. 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. 49 Co-occurrence (2 subcategories) Evidentiality Language Event Perception DeductionInferenceReportativity Yuhup++ Hup++ Huariapano, Hup, Jara- wara, Mamaindê, Sabanê ++ Karo++ Wanano++ Hup, Sabanê, Wanano++

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

51. 51 Reportative + Deduction Hup (Epps 2008: 658) Hup pã̌=cud=mah personNEG.EX=DED=REP ‘There was apparently nobody there, it’s said.’

52. 52 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.’

53. 53 Inference + Deduction Karo (Gabas 1999: 277) péŋ aʔ=wĩ-n aketmemã white.man 3.SG=kill-IND DEDINFER ‘The white man must have supposedly killed it/him.’

54. 54 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.’

55. 55 Deduction + Event Perception Wanano (Stenzel 2004:358) a'yootipa-wa-ri Oh! be.flat-become-NMZR.DED hi-ra COP-PERC.VIS.IMPF.NON1 ‘Oh! This one’s (been) flattened.’

56. 5. Conclusions

57. 57 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.

58. 58 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.

59. 59 This presentation is available at www.keeshengeveld.nl