Publishing Partner: Publisher Login. New from Cambridge University Press! The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics By Keith Brown and Jim Miller The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics "provides concise and clear definitions of all the terms any undergraduate or graduate student is likely to encounter in the study of linguistics and English language or in other degrees involving linguistics, such as modern languages, media studies and translation. New from Oxford University Press! The Morphology of Dutch By Geert Booij The Morphology of Dutch "contributes to ongoing discussions on the nature and representation of morphological processes, the role of paradigmatic relations between words - and between words and phrases - and the interaction between morphology, phonology, and syntax.
We Have a New Site! With the help of your donations we have been making good progress on designing and launching our new website! Elena Bashir.
Studies in Evidentiality. John Benjamins. Discuss this Review. Dixon, ed. Resulting from coordinated efforts to explore a common set of issues, the chapters in the volume have similar structure and content, insofar as is appropriate for the disparate languages involved.
This approach will facilitate use of the volume for comparative and typological research. The purpose of the workshop and publication is to present data-rich analytic descriptions of the evidential systems and evidential strategies of a range of languages and families. The intended audience is a wide range of linguists-- historical, areal, typological and field researchers. The book opens with a programmatic chapter on evidentiality in typological perspective, by Aikhenvald, which aims to "elaborate definitive cross-linguistic parameters of variation and a unified typological framework for evidentiality p.
Aikhenvald divides evidentiality systems into two broad types, which: I state that a source of evidence exists, but do not specify it; or II specify the source of evidence.
This parameter is related to the markedness status of the direct or the inferential cf. In the Balkans Ch. This basic distinction having been made, several subtypes of two-term, three-term, four-term, and five-or-more term systems are identified, and examples of each given. Topics discussed in the introductory chapter include: the types of markedness, both formal and functional, involved in evidential systems; the category-status of evidentials particularly with respect to languages in which the coding of evidentiality is distributed scattered among different systems of the language; semantic complexities and pragmatic extensions of evidential semantics; correlations with other grammatical categories; evidentiality strategies and their grammaticalization; historical sources of evidentiality; and the relation of evidentiality and cultural attitudes.
In general, each of the chapters concerned with a specific language deals with these issues as they are manifested in the language under consideration. The following languages or families are dealt with in separate chapters: Shipibo-Konibo, with a comparative overview of the category in Panoan Ch. Valenzuela ; Qiang Ch.
Aikhenvald ; Jarawara Ch.
Dixon ; Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian Ch. Friedman ; Yukaghir Ch. Dixon; Abkhaz Ch.
- Swan Song?
- Ms. Coco Is Loco! (My Weird School, Book 16).
- IRAN vii. NON-IRANIAN LANGUAGES (7) Turkic Languages.
- The matter of the mind: philosophical essays on psychology, neuroscience, and reduction!
- Glottolog - Leinonen, Marja .
- Practical People, Noble Causes.
- Authority without Power: Law and the Japanese Paradox (Studies on Law and Social Control).
The final chapter, written by Brian Joseph, provides a thematic overview of the book and offers suggestions for further research. It focuses on the semantics of evidentiality and its extensions, its categorial status in particular languages; the origins of evidentiality and its fate in contact situations; and the methodology employed in studying it. Three differing views of evidentiality emerge in the chapters of various authors: evidentiality as a sub- category of epistemic modality; evidentiality as primarily concerned with the reception and assimilation of information and indications of its source; evidentiality as indirectivity.
Unlike the other evidential "type II" systems, an indirectivity marking does not indicate information about the source of knowledge: it is irrelevant whether the information results from hearsay, inference, or perception; however, some Turkic languages distinguish between reported indirect and non-reported indirect , see Johanson , for further elaboration.
This can be seen in the following Turkish verbs:. In the word geldi , the unmarked suffix -di indicates past tense. It may be translated into English with the added phrases obviously , apparently or as far as I understand. The direct past tense marker -di is unmarked or neutral in the sense that whether or not evidence exists supporting the statement is not specified. The other broad type of evidentiality systems "type II" specifies the nature of the evidence supporting a statement.
These kinds of evidence can be divided into such categories as:. A witness evidential indicates that the information source was obtained through direct observation by the speaker. Usually this is from visual, or eyewitness, observation, but some languages also mark information directly heard with information directly seen.
A witness evidential is usually contrasted with a nonwitness evidential which indicates that the information was not witnessed personally but was obtained through a secondhand source or was inferred by the speaker. A secondhand evidential is used to mark any information that was not personally observed or experienced by the speaker.
This may include inferences or reported information. This type of evidential may be contrasted with an evidential that indicates any other kind of source. A few languages distinguish between secondhand and thirdhand information sources. Sensory evidentials can often be divided into different types. Some languages mark visual evidence differently from nonvisual evidence that is heard, smelled, or felt. The Kashaya language has a separate auditory evidential. An inferential evidential indicates information was not personally experienced but was inferred from indirect evidence. Some languages have different types of inferential evidentials.
Some of the inferentials found indicate:. In many cases, different inferential evidentials also indicate epistemic modality, such as uncertainty or probability see epistemic modality below. For example, one evidential may indicate that the information is inferred but of uncertain validity, while another indicates that the information is inferred but unlikely to be true.
Reportative evidentials indicate that the information was reported to the speaker by another person. A few languages distinguish between hearsay evidentials and quotative evidentials. Hearsay indicates reported information that may or may not be accurate. A quotative indicates the information is accurate and not open to interpretation, i. An example of a reportative from Shipibo -ronki :. The following is a brief survey of evidential systems found in the languages of the world as identified in Aikhenvald Some languages only have two evidential markers while others may have six or more.
Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages - Google книги
The system types are organized by the number of evidentials found in the language. For example, a two-term system A will have two different evidential markers; a three-term system B will have three different evidentials. The systems are further divided by the type of evidentiality that is indicated e.
Languages that exemplify each type are listed in parentheses. Evidential systems in many languages are often marked simultaneously with other linguistic categories. For example, according to Aikhenvald, a given language may use the same element to mark both evidentiality and mirativity , i. This phenomenon of evidentials developing secondary functions, or other grammatical elements such as miratives and modal verbs developing evidential functions is fairly widespread.
The following types of mixed systems have been reported:. More explicitly stated, she believes that there are modal systems which do not express evidentiality, and evidential systems which do not express modality. Likewise, there are mirative systems which do not express evidentiality, and evidential systems which do not express mirativity. Evidentiality is often considered to be a sub-type of epistemic modality see, for example, Palmer , Kiefer Other linguists consider evidentiality marking the source of information in a statement to be distinct from epistemic modality marking the degree of confidence in a statement.
An English example:.
Sections in this entry
Aikhenvald finds that evidentials may indicate a speaker's attitude about the validity of a statement but this is not a required feature of evidentials. Considering evidentiality as a type of epistemic modality may only be the result of analyzing non-European languages in terms of the systems of modality found in European languages. For example, the modal verbs in Germanic languages are used to indicate both evidentiality and epistemic modality and are thus ambiguous when taken out of context. Other non-European languages clearly mark these differently.
tiothersmiltha.tk De Haan finds that the use of modal verbs to indicate evidentiality is comparatively rare based on a sample of languages. Although some linguists have proposed that evidentiality should be considered separately from epistemic modality, other linguists conflate the two. Because of this conflation, some researchers use the term evidentiality to refer both to the marking of the knowledge source and the commitment to the truth of the knowledge. Evidentiality is not considered a grammatical category in English because it is expressed in diverse ways and is always optional. In contrast, many other languages including Quechua , Aymara , and Yukaghir require the speaker to mark the main verb or the sentence as a whole for evidentiality, or offer an optional set of affixes for indirect evidentiality, with direct experience being the default assumed mode of evidentiality.
We are unlikely to say the second unless someone perhaps Bob himself has told us that Bob is hungry. We might still say it for someone incapable of speaking for himself, such as a baby or a pet. If we are simply assuming that Bob is hungry based on the way he looks or acts, we are more likely to say something like:. Here, the fact that we are relying on sensory evidence, rather than direct experience, is conveyed by our use of the word look or seem. Another situation in which the evidential modality is expressed in English is in certain kinds of predictions, namely those based on the evidence at hand.
Amongst EFL teachers, these are usually referred to as "predictions with evidence".