1. Evidentiality in Meadow Mari
Diane Nelson, University of Leeds
& Elena vedernikova
SOUL Budapest, 28 june 2017

2. Overview of the talk 1. Introduction
2. An overview of Meadow Mari tenses; evidentiality, mirativity and TAM
3. Some predictions
4. Results of questionnaire study
5. Sensory perception licensing direct evidential
6. Embedded clauses and scope effects

3. Mari Mari belongs to the Volgaic branch of Uralic (with Mordva)
Main dialects, Meadow and Hill are mutually intelligible. Most speakers are bilingual Mari and Russian speakers
Extensive contact with Turkic
Meadow Mari has about 414,000 speakers

4. TAM in Meadow Mari Mood: Indicative, Imperative, Desiderative
Present (nonpast) tense
Simple Past 1 & 2
Compound tenses

5. Two Past Tenses Past tense 1 Past tense 2
From proto-Uralic *–i- and *-sj-
Conj 1: tolj-y-m
come-PST1-1s
‘I came’
Conj 2: vozy-š-ym
write-PST1-1s
‘I wrote’
Derived from gerund plus copula ulam ‘is’ (realised as zero in 3s)
Conj 1: tol-yn-am
come.PST2-1s
‘I came‘
Conj 2: voz-en-am
write-PST2-1s
‘I wrote’

6. Past Tenses Simple past tense 1 Simple past tense 2 “Past Perfect 1”
Compound past 1
(imperfective)
Compound past 2
Suffixes
Simple past 2+ ylje
Simple past 2 + ulmaš
Present tense + ylje
Present tense + ulmaš
Conjugation 1 -y
tolj-y-m
'I came/ have come'
-yn
tol-yn-am
'I came'
tol-yn-am ylje
'I had come'
tol-yn-am ulmaš
'I had come/
I appeared to have come'
tol-am ylje
'I was coming'
tol-am ulmaš
Conjugation 2 -š
Vozy-š-ym
‘I wrote/ have written'
-en
voz-en-am
I wrote'
voz-en-am ylje
'I had written'
voz-en-am ulmaš
'I had written/
I appeared to have written'
voz-em ylje
'I was writing'
voz-em ulmaš

7. “Auxiliaries” in Compound Tenses
With Past tense 1: ylje
With Past tense 2: ulmaš
Traditional Mari grammars: auxiliary
Riese et al 2017: particle
Uninflected
Derivation unclear- from ulaš ‘to be’; possibly ul+Turkic -maš
Traditional grammars: Past 2 forms associated with indirect evidentiality (inference, hearsay)
Traditional Mari grammars: auxiliary
Riese et al 2017: particle
Uninflected
from ulaš ‘to be’ PAST1.3S
Traditional grammars: Past 1 forms associated with direct evidentiality (speaker witness)

8. Past Tenses
Simple past tense 1
Simple past tense 2
Past Perfect 1
Past perfect 2
Compound past 1
(imperfective)
Compound past 2
Suffixes
Simple past 2+ ylje
Simple past 2 + ulmaš
Present tense + ylje
Present tense+ ulmaš -y
tolj-y-m
'I came‘/
‘I have come’
-yn
tol-yn-am
'I came'
tol-yn-am ylje
'I had come'
tol-yn-am ulmaš
'I had come/
I appeared to have come'
tol-am ylje
‘I was coming'
tol-am ulmaš
'I was coming'
direct evidentiality
indirect evidentiality
…but evidentiality doesn’t correlate in a straightforward way with morphology.

9. Evidentiality Brugman & Macaulay (2015)
Evidentiality can be reduced to 2 core components:
Marks source of evidence (e.g. direct perception vs inference/hearsay)
Membership in grammatical systems
All other properties are subject to cross-linguistic variation

10. Evidentiality
Cross-linguistic variation (Aikhenvald 2004, Brugman & Macaulay 2015):
Mirative and TAM semantics
Locus (lexis, tense/mood or complementisers)
Nature and type of sensory perception to license evidentials
Scope and subordination
“The values of these variable properties cannot be assumed but must be empirically determined for individual items and languages.” Brugman & Macaulay (2015:1)

11. TAM and evidentiality “Perfect of evidentiality” c. Turkish
Cross-linguistic correlation between morphological encoding of present perfect aspect (PPA) and indirect evidentiality (Bybee & Dahl 1989, Izvorski 1997):
(1) a. Bulgarian
Az sam dosal.
I be-1SG.PRES come-P.PART
b. Norwegian
Jeg har kommet.
I have-SG.PRES come-P.PART
c. Turkish
Gel-miş-im.
come-PERF-1SG
‘It is said that I have come.’
‘I infer that I have come’
(Izvorski 1997:1)

12. TAM and evidentiality
‘‘The evidential uses of perfects develop because the perfect is used to describe past actions or events with present results. If the focus of the meaning is on the idea that the present results are connected to and perhaps attest to past actions or events, then the notion of an action known by its results can be extended to actions known by other indirect means, such as by inference (from reasoning in addition to inference from results) and by reports from other parties.’’ Bybee & Dahl (1989:73-74)

13. TAM and evidentiality
Izvorski (1997) formalises the link between semantics of present perfect with semantics of indirect evidentials
Indirect evidentiality is a propositional operator Ev, which is an epistemic modal
Present perfect and indirect evidentials share core semantics:
for PPA, the consequent state of the core eventuality holds at TU.
for Ev, the core eventuality does not hold at TU; the speaker knows that proposition p has consequences or results, and has indirect evidence of p
“Present perfect morphology contributes either to the temporal interpretation of propositions or to their evidential status” (Izvorski 1997:235)

14. The perfect of evidentiality in Turkish
(2) a. O gel-di. > Turkish definite past /-ti, -di/
s/he arrive-PAST
“S/he arrived” (direct evidential)
b. O gel-miş.
s/he arrive-PERF(PAST2)
“S/he (apparently) arrived”
(indirect evidential)
> “Indefinite” past /-miş/
Derived from and identical to gerund
Occurs in compound tenses
Only present perfect has evidential meaning
Pluperfect gel-miş-ti “s/he had arrived”
#“s/he apparently had arrived”
Izvorski’s analysis of PPA extends to morphology derived from present perfect

15. Mari Past Tenses (again)
From proto-Uralic *–i- and *-sj-
Conj 1: tolj-y-m
come.PST1-1s
‘I came’
Conj 2: voz-y-š-y-m
write-PST1-1s
‘I wrote’
Derived from gerund
Conj 1: tol-yn-am
come.PST2-1s
‘I came’
Conj 2: voz-en-am
write-PST2-1s
‘I wrote’
cf elsewhere in Uralic, Mongolian etc.

16. Does Mari have a Present Perfect?
> Prediction: Mari PAST2 should encode PPA semantics and indirect evidential operator Ev
4 versions of present perfect (Ritz 2012):
The perfect of “persistent situation”, which describes a state holding during a specific period including the present moment, as in “Mary has lived in Leeds for 20 years (and still lives there)”
The existential perfect, which means the event has happened at least once up until the moment of speech, as in “Mary has eaten worms.”
The perfect of result, which means that the result or consequences of an event hold at the moment of speech, as in “Mary has arrived (and is still here)”
The “hot news” perfect, as in “Mary has (just) told me she’s moving to Brazil.”
“This is so called direct and indirect (indicative and relative) tense form usage. In direct, or indicative usage, the action is defined as related to the present while in relative usage the action is relayed to the continuum (past, or future) - which is a basic background of temporal relation”. (Pengitov, Sovremennyi mariyskiy yazyk 1961: 187)

17. Does Mari have a Present Perfect?
Both PAST1 and PAST2 seem to have PPA semantics: 3 (a) Mary tolj-o (vele) Mary come-3SG.PST1 Mary has arrived (and is still here) (perfect of result) (b) Mary tol-yn *(vele) Mary come-3SG.PST2 only ‘Mary has just arrived’ (perfect of result) Past 2 +vele indicate the result (arrival as a fact) while Past1+vele indicate the very recent moment the event happened Past 1 and 2 can imply “hot news”

18. Tense, evidentiality and mirativity
Lau & Rooryck (2017) observe that PPA and indirect evidentiality are also linked with mirativity, defined as “sudden realization or discovery: a punctual change of epistemic state.”
Turkish (Slobin and Aksu, 1982: 187, cited in Lau & Rooryck 2017:112):
(4) Kemal gel-miş
Kemal come-PERF
‘Kemal came.’
“(a) INFERENCE: The Speaker sees Kemal’s coat hanging in the front hall, but has not yet seen Kemal.
(b) HEARSAY: The Speaker has been told that Kemal has arrived, but has not yet seen Kemal.
(c) SURPRISE: The Speaker hears someone approach, opens the door, and sees Kemal---a totally
unexpected visitor.’’

19. Tense, evidentiality and mirativity
Lau & Rooryck (2017) dissociate mirativity from conversational implicatures of surprise and unexpectedness
Proposal: in epistemic predicates, present perfect morphology/indirect evidentiality is used to express information update processes mediated by inference and hearsay (2017:117)
Event structure of indirect evidentials contains stages leading to final state sf
Miratives are equivalent to Vendlerian achievements; no stages leading to sf
PAST2 sounds better with achievements (appear, vanish, explode)
Prediction: Mari perfect morphology (PAST2) should encode both indirect evidentiality and mirativity.

20. To explore:
(a) To test the proposed link between perfect TAM, evidentiality and mirativity in Meadow Mari
And while we’re at it…
(b) establish the nature of the sensory perception which licenses the use of direct evidential forms in Past 1
(c) identify the morphosyntactic locus or loci of evidentiality in embedded clauses

21. Methodology
Based on Kittilä et al (2014)’s questionnaire system for eliciting evidentials
Part 1:
Provide sentences out of context and ask for possible interpretations related to speaker witness, aspect and mirativity
Part 2:
Provide context and ask participants to select preferred forms from a set of options
Can select more than one option

22. Participants
Participant (1) a Mari Meadow speaker of the Morko and Sernur subdialect (a basis for the Mari literary language)
Participant (2) relative of (a). Meadow Mari speaker, related to Yoshkar Ola subdialect (intermediate between Hill and Meadow).
Participant (3) Mari Meadow speaker of the Morko and Sernur subdialect
Participant (4): brother of (a), Mari Meadow speaker of the Morko and Sernur subdialect

23. Task 1 Provide a set of contexts that manipulate: Example:
Source of evidence
Time of event in relation to utterance
Example:
You see on the tv news that the train station has collapsed. You call your friends to report the information right away.
Kürtn’ygorno stancij šalanen manyn, televizor dene kol’yč. Tyj vigak joltašet-vlak deke tide uver dene jyŋ
yrtet.
Choose the sentence(s) that you would use in that context:
A. Kürtn'ygorno stancij šalanyš. ‘The train station collapsed’ SIMPLE PAST 1
B. Kürtn'ygorno stancij šalanen. ‘The train station collapsed’ SIMPLE PAST 2
C. Kürtn'ygorno stancij šalanen yl'e. ‘The train station collapsed’ PAST PERFECT 1
D. Kürtn'ygorno stancij šalanen ulmaš. ‘The train station collapsed’ PAST PERFECT 2

24. Mirative (with special prosody)
Source of information
Time relative to utterance
A- PAST 1
B- PAST 2
C -PERF 1
Yl’e
D - PERF 2
Ulmas 1
You read in the newspaper the train station has collapsed. You tell your friends right away
Secondary source (newspaper)
close
1, 4
2, 3, 4 4 2
You read in the newspaper the train station has collapsed. A few days later you tell your friends.
distant
1, 3, 4
2, 4 3
A work colleague tells you that the train station has just collapsed. You call your friends to report the information right away.
Secondary source (hearsay)
You see on the tv news that the train station has collapsed. You call your friends to report the information right away.
Secondary source (tv) but "seen" by speaker
3, 4
1, 2, 4 5
You hear a loud noise, and then you walk past the train station and you see that it has collapsed. You call your friends to report the information right away.
Primary source (hearing) + see result
Close 6
You are across the street from the station when it collapses (you see it with your own eyes). You tell your friends right away.
Primary source (visual)
1, 2, 3, 4 7
You are across the street from the station when it collapses (you see it with your own eyes). A few days later you tell your friends about it
Hot news
Ulmaš
hearsay
Hot news
Mirative
Mirative (with special prosody)
Hot news
Hot news

25. Task 2 1. Provide a set of sentences in all six tenses
2. Ask participants to assign a possible value for each sentence for
A. speaker witness (direct evidentiality)
B. Perfectivity (is the book finished?)
C. Mirativity (is the event unexpected or surprising?)

26. Questionnaire results
Speaker witness
Result
Mirative 1 2 3 4
Nuno knigam vozyšt
‘They wrote the book'
PAST1 x
Nuno knigam vozenyt
PAST2
Nuno knigam vozenyt ylje
‘They have written the book'
PERF1
Nuno knigam vozenyt ulmaš
‘They have written the book’
PERF2
‘They were writing the book'
IMP1
Nuno knigam vozenyt (vozat) ulmaš
IMP2

27. Questionnaire results
Speaker witness
Perfective
Mirative 1 2 3 4
Nuno knigam vozyšt
‘They wrote the book'
PAST1 x
Nuno knigam vozenyt
PAST2
Nuno knigam vozenyt ylje
‘They have written the book'
PERF1
Nuno knigam vozenyt ulmaš
‘They have written the book’
PERF2
‘They were writing the book'
IMP1
Nuno knigam vozenyt (vozat) ulmaš
IMP2

28. Mirative Nuno knigam yšt vozo '(they) did not write the book'
NEG PAST1
nuno knigam vozen ogytyl
NEG PAST2
nuno knigam vozen ogytyl yle
NEG PERF1
Nuno knigam vozen ogytyl ulmaš
(they) did not write the book'
NEG PERF2 x
Nuno knigam vozen ogytyl
(they) were not writing the book'
NEG IMP1
NEG IMP2
Tyj olmam kočkyn pytarenat?
Did you eat the apple?’
Q PAST1
Tyj olmam kočkynat?
‘Did you eat the apple?’
Q PAST2
Tyj olmam kočkynat yl’e?
‘Have you eaten the apple?'
Q PERF1
Tyj olmam kočkynat ulmaš?
‘Have you eaten the apple?' -
Q PERF2
Tyj olmam kočkat yl’e?
Were (you) eating the apple?'
Q IMP1
Tyj olmam kočkat ulmaš?
‘Were you eating the apple?’
Q IMP2

29. Results Simple past tense 1 Simple past tense 2 Past Perfect 1
Compound past 1
(imperfective)
Compound past 2
Suffixes
Simple past 2+ ylje
Simple past 2 + ulmaš
Present tense + ylje
Present tense + ulmaš -y
tolj-y-m
'I came‘/
‘I have come’
-yn
tol-yn-am
'I came'
tol-yn-am ylje
'I had come'
tol-yn-am ulmaš
'I had come/
I appeared to have come'
tol-am ylje
'I was coming'
tol-am ulmaš
direct evidentiality
perfect
indirect evidentiality
mirative
(mirative under negation)

30. Back to predictions
Traditional grammars: Past 1 forms direct evidentiality, Past 2 forms indirect evidentiality
Past 2 predicted to have perfect semantics and mirative
Results:
High levels of speaker variation but some factors do seem to be systematic
Both PAST1 and PAST2 can have perfect semantics (result, hot news)
Without a context, simple past 1 consistently implies direct evidentiality
Simple past 2 is usually associated with indirect evidentiality
Ulmaš is both indirect evidential and mirative (but not PPA)
Under negation, compound tenses with ylje can also be mirative

31. Evidentiality and sensory perception
What licenses direct evidential in PAST1?
Visual perception
Auditory perception
Olfactory perception
5) Kö tamakym šupšo?
who cigarette-ACC drag.3SG.PST1
‘Who has smoked?’
6) Pölem-yšte duhi dene üpš-alte
room-INESS perfume with smell-REFL.3SG.PST1
‘It has smelled perfume in the room’

32. Evidentiality in the CP-domain
Modal complementisers manyn (< say-GER) for and pujto (‘as if’, for reporting hearsay) neutralise the evidentiality of the tensed verb:
(7) Kürtn'ygorno stancij šalan-yš manyn kolj-ym.
railway station break-3SG.PST1 COMP hear-PST1.1SG
‘I heard that the train station collapsed’ (information is hearsay)
(8) Kolj-ym pujto kürtn'ygorno stancij šalan-yš.
hear-1SG.PST1 as if railway station break-PST1.3SG
‘I heard as if the train station has collapsed’ (information is less reliable)
PST1 but indirect evidentiality; indicates temporal proximity or relevance

33. Evidentiality in the CP-domain
Compound Past tense 2 and Past Perfect 2 with AUX ulmaš (indirect evidentials) can’t be embedded under evidential complementisers manyn and pujto:
(9) *Kolj-ym pujto kürtn'ygorno stancij šalan-en ulmaš
hear-1SG.PST1 as if railway station break-PST2.3SG AUX
‘I heard as if the train station had collapsed’
Two markers for indirect evidentiality disallowed in one clause

34. Evidentiality in the CP-domain
This constraint is not syntactic, because embedding of clauses headed by ylje is possible but evidentiality of complementiser neutralises that of AUX:
(10) Kolj-ym pujto kürtn'ygorno stancij šalan-en ylje.
hear-1SG.PST1 as if railway station break-PST2.3SG AUX.
‘I heard as if the train station had collapsed’ (indirect evidentiality)
More evidence that ulmaš encodes (indirect) the evidentiality operator Ev, not Past2

35. Thanks to… All participants in the questionnaire study
An anonymous SOUL abstract reviewer for helpful comments

36. References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004: Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Brugman, C. and Macaulay, M. (2015) Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology 19(2): 201–237.
Izvorski, R., The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Proc. SALT 7,
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva (1998) Mari. In D. Abondolo (ed) The Uralic Languages, pp Routledge.
Kittilä, Seppo, Lotta Jalava & Erika Sandman (2014) What do different methods of data collection reveal about evidentiality? Paper presented at Workshop on Grammar and Cognition, Radboud University, 9 January 2014.
Lau, M.L. and Rooryck, J. (2017) Aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity. Lingua :110—119.
Pengitov, N.T. (ed.) Sovremennyi marijskij jazyk. Morfologija (Modern Mari Language. Morphology). Joškar Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdatel'stvo.
Riese, Timothy; Bradley, Jeremy; Yakimova, Emma; Krylova, Galina Оҥай марий йылме: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Mari Language. [Version 3.1.] Vienna: University of Vienna [omj.mari-language.com]
Ritz, M-E (2012) Perfect tense and aspect. In R. Binnick (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, pp Oxford.