Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 30:2 (2023) ► pp.183–208

Seeing and knowing

Direct evidentials revisited

ORCID logo | Gothenburg University
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.
Keywords: evidentiality, epistemic authority, pragmatics, grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidentials as source of information
  • 3.Evidentials as stance
    • 3.1A relational view of evidentiality
  • 4.The grammaticalization of direct evidentials
    • 4.1Direct evidentials as metaphors of perception
    • 4.2The deictic origin of direct evidentials
  • 5.Direct evidentials and egophoric marking
    • 5.1The egophoric nature of direct evidentials
  • 6.Discussion and summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 27 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22006.ber
References (69)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2011. The grammaticalization of evidentiality. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 602–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–50. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Evidentiality: The framework. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Janet. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 501. 255–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2018a. The role of sentence type in Ika (Arwako) egophoric marking. In Simeon Floyd Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 347–375. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Evidentiality as stance: Event types and speaker roles. In Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.), Evidence for Evidentiality, 19–43. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik & Seppo Kittilä. 2017. Person and knowledge: Introduction. Open Linguistics 31. 18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Epistemic perspectives: Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement. In Henrik Bergqvist & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement [Studies in Diversity Linguistics]. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik & Dominique Knuchel. 2017. Complexity in egophoric marking: From agents to attitude holders. Open Linguistics 31. 359–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Explorations of engagement: Introduction. Open Linguistics 5(1). 650–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik & K. Grzech. 2023. The role of pragmatics for the definition of evidentiality. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 67(1). 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Chafe, Wallace (ed.). 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood N.J.: Ablex Pub.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Person variation in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 61(4). 309–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curnow, J. Timothy. 2002. Types of interaction between evidentials and first-person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics 44(2). 178–196.Google Scholar
. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27(1). 39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in discourse and grammar. Functions of Language 7(1). 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, Patrick & Liliane Tasmowski. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2001. The cognitive basis of visual evidentials. In Alan Cienki, Barbara J. Luka & Michael B. Smith (eds), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure, 91–106. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
De Lancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 289–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 450–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donabédian, Anaïd. 2001. Towards a semasiological account of evidentials: An enunciative approach of -er in Modern Western Armenian. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 421–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas R., Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018a. The grammar of engagement I: Framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 101. 110–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 101. 141–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002a. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University PhD thesis.
. 2002b. Remarks on evidential hierarchies. In David I. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The Construction of Meaning, 37–59. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque. 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 2018. Where do evidentials come from? In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 124–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Lynn. 1986. The development of evidentials in Maricopa. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 75–88. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
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.
. 2020. Managing Common Ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evidential’ markers in Upper Napo Kichwa and their functions in interaction, Journal of Pragmatics 1681. 81–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: finite conjunct and disjunct forms in Newari. In Roland Trail (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 71, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 2012. Foreword: Evidentiality in social interaction. Pragmatics and Society 3(2). 169–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Evidentiality in social interaction. In Janis B. Nuckolls & Lev Michael (eds.) Evidentiality in Interaction, 1–12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 51. 1–48.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph, & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher. 2015. Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics 53(3). 479–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 451. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintz, Daniel J. & Diane M. Hintz. 2017. The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua 186/1871. 88–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Theory 31(2). 517–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territories of information. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2012. Speech-act participants in modality. Paper presented at the International Conference on Discourse & Grammar, University of Ghent, 23–24 May 2008. [URL]
Malone, Terrell. 1988. The origin and development of Tuyuca evidentials. International Journal of American Linguistics 54(2). 119–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, Teenie. 1989. Metaphor and the grammaticalization of evidentials. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215–225. Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies 15(5). 627–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis & Lev Michael (eds.). 2014. Evidentiality in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
San Roque, Lila. 2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48(1). 353–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 161. 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe. 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua 186/1871. 120–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlichter, Alice. 1986. The origin and deictic nature of Wintu evidentials. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 46–59. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Silva, Wilson & Scott AnderBois. 2016. Fieldwork game play: Masterminding evidentiality in Desano. Language Documentation & Conservation 101. 58–76.Google Scholar
Stenzel, Kristine. 2008. Evidentials and clause modality in Wanano. Studies in Language 32(2). 405–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T-S. 2018. Evidentiality and person. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 47–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1983. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21(1). 123–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1). 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widmer, Manuel & Marius Zemp. 2017. The epistemization of person markers in reported speech. Studies in Language 41(1). 33–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2016. Evidentiality, inferentiality, and speaker’s attitude: Questionnaire or exemplary set. Universität Tübingen manuscript.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2016. The diachrony of modality and mood. In Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar