Types of grammatical evidentials in the languages of the Balkan and Baltic linguistic areas Petar Kehayov University of Tartu / University of Antwerp [email protected].

Types of grammatical evidentials in the languages of the Balkan and Baltic linguistic areas

Petar Kehayov

University of Tartu / University of Antwerp

[email protected]

2

What is grammatical evidentiality?

“In about a quarter of the world’s languages, every statement must specify the type of source on which it is based – for example, whether the speaker saw it, or heard it, or inferred it from indirect evidence, or learnt it from someone else. This grammatical category, whose primary meaning is information source is called ‘evidentiality’.” (Aikhenvald 2004: 1)

3

Outline

• Areal clustering of grammatical evidentiality in Europe

• Parameters for comparison– formal– semantic and pragmatic– structural availability (combinability with adjacent functionalcategories and clause types)

• Results

• Conclusions

4

Areal clustering of grammatical evidentiality in Europe

BUL

MACALB

TUR

LIT

LAT

EST

GAG

KOMI

CHV

UDMMARI

TAT

NOG

BSK

AROM

LIV

ABKCHE

INGGOD

KAZ

MGLR

5

The sample

EST

LAT

LIT

BUL

TURMAC

ALB

6

Formal parameters

1) Past participle as evidential form:

BulgarianTojotišăl na svadba.he go-PST.PTCP to wedding

‘Allegedly, he went to a wedding.’

2) Present participle as evidential form:

LithuanianJis rašąs laišką.he write-PRS.PTCP letter-ACC

‘Reportedly he is writing a letter.’

7

3) Other nominalization (e.g. infinitive) as evidential form:

Estonian

Ta olla pulmas.

s/he be-INF wedding-INE

‘Reportedly s/he is at the wedding.’

4) Obligatory ellipsis of the finite auxiliary in the evidential past:

Latvian

Jana vakar atnākusi mājās.

Jana yesterday come-PST.PTCP home

‘Reportedly Jana has come home yesterday.’

8

5) The existence of dedicated evidential morpheme:

LatvianJana esot mājās.Jana be-RM home‘Reportedly Jana is home.’

6) The use of the participle of the auxiliary verb as a “distance particle” (Johanson 1998: 146), cf.:

BulgarianТoj živeel mnogo dobre.He live-PST.PTCP very well‘Reportedly he lives very well.’

Тоj bil živeel mnogo dobre.He be-PST.PTCP live-PST.PTCP very well‘Reportedly (+ lower commitment) he lives very well.’

9

7) The use of voice distinction as an evidential strategy:

Lithuanian

Jo rašoma laiškas. (Gronemeyer 1997: 103)

he-GEN write-PASS.PRS.PTCP.NT letter

‘He is evidently writing a letter.’

10

Semantic and pragmatic parameters

1) The system covers reported evidentiality

2) The system covers inferentiality

3) The system covers mirativity

Albanian

Sa bukur folke shqip! (Eintrei 1982: 111)

how well speak-ADM.2SG AlbanianADV

‘How well do you speak Albanian!’

11

4) The existence of means for expressing a tripatrite distinction [UNMARKED / + feature / – feature]:

Macedonian (Friedman 1986)

UNMARKED FIRSTHAND NON-FIRSTHAND

beše pravil imaše praveno imal praveno

be-IMPF do-ACT.PST.PTCP HAB-IMPF do-PASS.PST.PTCP HAB-PST.PTCP do-PASS.PST.PTCP

‘he had done (it)’ (with

no reference to the

source of information)

‘he had (it) done’ (the

speaker confirms it)

‘he is said to had done (it)’

12

5) A subtype of evidentiality is specified out of umbrella term, cf.:

Turkish (Slobin & Aksu 1982: 194)Kemal gelmişKemal come-PST.INDIR

‘Kemal has reportedly/evidently come.’

Kemal gelmiş- (i)mişKemal come-PST.INDIR- be-PST.INDIR

‘Kemal has reportedly come.’

6) The evidential encodes generic statements (i.e. expressions of epistemic necessity):

Albanian (Duchet & Përnaska 1996: 37)Po ja kë fati qenka fat.Et voilà que destin.le être (Prés.Adm.3SG) destin‘Et voilà que le destin est le destin.’

13

7)Evidential forms are used when the speaker refers to his own dreams:

Turkish (Meydan 1996: 131)Bu gece çok güzel bir rüya gör-dü-m. Büyük birDÉM nuit trés beau un rêve voir-DI-1SG grand unbahçe-dey-miş-im.jardin-LOC-miş-1SG

‘Cette nuit, j’ai fait un trés beau rêve. J’étais dans un jardin immense.’

8)Evidential forms are used with sensory and mental state verbs as objectivizers of speaker’s feelings:

Albanian (Duchet & Përnaska 1996: 36)– Po më ardhka keq per Franin, – tha vëllai.

me venir(Prés.Adm.3SG) mal pourFran dire(Aor.3SG)frère.le‘– Je regrette beaucoup pour Fran, dit le frère.’

14

9) Evidential forms are conventionalized in the traditional narratives (fairy tales, legends etc.) as basic forms of the predicate.

10) Evidential forms are conventionalized in historical discourse.

15

Structural availability

1) Evidentials are used in non-echoic interrogative clauses. There is a further distinction between

yes/no-questions:BulgarianTakava li bila rabotata?such YES/NO be-PST.PTCP affair‘Is that really so?’

wh-questions:AlbanianKu qenka mjeshtri? (Friedman 2003: 201)where be-ADM.3SG boss-DEF

‘Where is the boss?’

16

2) Evidentials are used to express reported commands:

BulgarianNeka da otideli v Sofia.let CONJ go-PST.PTCP to Sofia‘Reportedly they should go to Sofia.’

17

3) Evidential forms coincide with morphological mood:

Turkish

yazmalıymış (Kononov 1956: 251)

write-DEB-PST.INDIR.3SG

‘Evidently/reportedly he has to write a letter.’

Latvian

Bûtuõt labâk palikusi te. (Rudzīte 1984: 246)

be-COND-RM better stay-PST.PTCP there.

‘It is said that it would have been better to stay there.’

18

4) Evidentials fall in the scope of conditional:

Albanian (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 159)

… të mos e paskish thirrur, zoti e di, sagjatë

CONJ NEG him have-ADM-3SGcall-PTCP lord-DEF it knows howlong

do të kishte mbetur ashtu.

FUT CONJ have-PST-3SG remain-PTCP that.way

‘If she had not called him, Lord knows how long he would have stayed like that.’

19

Results

Legend: + the feature is present, (+) the feature is documented, but it is not central to the category, is very unfrequent or is restricted only to some dialects, – the feature is not present, ? no information available.

Formal parameters

EVIDENTIAL GRAM TUR BUL MAC ALB LIT LAT EST

PAST PARTICIPLE + + + + + + +

PRESENT PARTICIPLE – – – – + + +

OTHER NOMINALIZATION – – – – – (+) +

AUXILIARY ELLIPSIS + + + – + + +

DEDICATED MORPHEME – – – + – + +

DISTANCE PARTICLE + + + + + – –

VOICE DISTINCTION – – + – + (+) –

20

Semantic and pragmatic parameters

FUNCTION TUR BUL MAC ALB LIT LAT EST

COVERS REPORTED EV. + + + + + + +

COVERS INFERENTIALITY + + + + + – –

COVERS MIRATIVITY + + + + + – –

TRIPARTITE DISTINCTION

WITH UNMARKED MEMBER+ – + – – – –

SUBTYPE OF EV. BEING

SPECIFIED(+) (+) (+) – + – –

MARKS GENERIC

STATEMENTS– – – + – – –

USED IN REPORTS OF

DREAMS+ + + ? (+) – –

USED AS OBJECTIVIZER OF

SENSORY PERCEPTIONS

AND FEELINGS

– – – + – – –

CONV. IN FOLK NARRATIVES + + + + (+) (+) (+)

CONV. IN HISTORICAL

DISCOURSE – (+) (+) + – – –

21

Structural availability

SYNTAGM TUR BUL MAC ALB LIT LAT EST

NON-ECHOIC QUESTIONS + + + + (+) – –

REPORTED COMMANDS (+) + + + – + –

MORPHOLOGICAL MOOD + – – – (+) + –

SCOPE OF CONDITIONAL – – – + – – –

22

Degree of similarity to Lithuanian

≥ 16 shared features

≥ 12 shared features

≥ 9 shared features

EST

LAT

LIT

BUL

MACALB TUR

23

Degree of similarity to Turkish

≥ 16 shared features

≥ 11 shared features

≥ 9 shared features

EST

LAT

LIT

BUL

MACALB

TUR

24

Degree of similarity to Estonian

≥ 18 shared features

≥ 10 shared features

≥ 8 shared features

EST

LAT

LIT

BUL

MACALB TUR

25

Degree of similarity to Albanian

≥ 12 shared features

≥ 9 shared features

≥ 7 shared features

EST

LAT

LIT

BUL

MACALB TUR

26

clusters sharing 18 or more features

clusters sharing 16 or more features

ALB

EST

LAT

LIT

BUL

TUR

MAC

27

Conclusions

1) The evidentiality system of Lithuanian stands typologically closer to the Balkan systems (with the exception of the Albanian) than to those of Latvian and Estonian.

2) The evidentiality systems of Turkish, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Lithuanian are prototypical representatives of the Euroasiatic type of grammaticalized evidentiality. The rise of this type is probably due to universal processing principles, e.g. the development from perfective past to evidential.

3) The evidentiality systems of Estonian, Latvian and Albanian are the result of geographically restricted innovation.

4) A closer look at the properties of the evidential systems allows us to outline areas of affinity which are rather different from the classical Sprachbunds.

28

References• Aikhenvald, A. 2004: Evidentiality. Oxford.• Buchholz, O, Fiedler, W. 1987: Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig.• Duchet, J.-L., Pernäska, R. 1996: L’admiratif albanais: recherche d’un invariant

sémantique. In Z. Guentchéva, éd., L’Énonciation médiatisée. Louvain – Paris, 31–46.

• Eintrei, T. I. 1982: Аlbanskij jazyk. Leningrad.• Friedman, V. A. 1986: Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and

Albanian. In W. Chafe, J. Nichols eds., Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Advances in Discourse Processes 20. Norwood, New Jersey, 168–187.

• Friedman, V. A. 2003: Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon, eds., Studies in Evidentiality. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam – Philadelphia, 189–218.

• Gronemeyer, C. 1997: Evidentiality in Lithuanian. In Working Papers 46. Lund University, Department of Linguistics. Lund, 93–112.

• Johanson, L. 1998: Zum Kontakteinflu türkischer Indirektive. N. Demir, E. Taube eds., Turkologie heute – Tradition und Perspektive. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 48. Wiesbaden, 141–150.

• Kononov, A. N. 1956: Grammatika sovremennogo tureckogo jazyka. Moskva – Leningrad.

• Lindstedt, J. 2000a: The Perfect – Aspectual, Temporal and Evidential. Ö. Dahl ed., Tense and Aspect in the Languages in Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, vol. 20, no. 6 = Eurotyp, no. 6. Berlin – New York, 365–383.

29

• Meydan, M 1996: Les emplois médiatifs de -mış en Turc. In Z. Guentchéva, éd., L’Énonciation médiatisée. Louvain – Paris, 125–143.

• Rudzīte, M 1964: Latviešu dialektoloģija. Rīga.• Slobin, D., Aksu, A. 1982: Tense Aspect and Modality in the Use of the Turkish

Evidential. P. J. Hopper ed., Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam – Philadephia, 185–200.

Abbreviations: ACC – accusative, ADM – admirative mood, ADV – adverb(ial), AOR – aorist, COND – conditional mood, EV – evidential, DEB – debitive, DEF – definite, DEM – demonstrative, CONJ – conjunctive, HAB – habere, INDIR – indirective, LOC – locative, INE – inessive, IMPF – imperfect, NEG – negative, NT – neuter, PASS – passive, PRS – present, PST – past, PTCP – participle, RM – renarrated mood, SG – singular, 1 – first person, 2 – second person, 3 – third person

Language abbreviations: ABK – Abkhaz, ALB – Albanian, AROM – Aromanian, BSK – Bashkir, BUL – Bulgarian, CHE – Chechen, EST – Estonian, GAG –Gagauz, GOD – Godoberi, ING – Ingush, KAZ – Kazakh, LAT – Latvian, LIT – Lithuanian, LIV – Livonian, MAC – Macedonian, MGLR – Megleno-Romanian, NOG – Noghai, CHV – Chuvash, TAT – Tatar, TUR – Turkish, UDM – Udmurt