17.2: Some common types of evidential systems

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 138719

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

As mentioned in the previous section, hearsay markers are one of the most common types of evidential marker cross-linguistically. Another common type of evidential marking is seen in languages like Cherokee, which distinguish direct from indirect knowledge. Evidentiality in Cherokee is signaled by a contrast between two different past tense forms.¹ Cherokee speakers use the direct form -ʌʔi to express what they have experienced personally, e.g. something they have seen, heard, smelled, felt, etc. They use the indirect form -eʔi to express what they have heard from someone else; or what they have inferred based on observable evidence (e.g., seeing puddles one might say ‘It rained-indirect’); or what they have assumed based on prior knowledge.

Many languages which have evidential systems make only a two-way distinction, e.g. between direct vs. indirect knowledge, or between hearsay/reported information vs. other sources. However, more complex systems are not uncommon. Huallaga Quechua has three contrastive evidential categories, marked by clitic particles which (in the default pattern) attach to the verb:² =mi marks “direct” knowledge (e.g. eye-witness or personal experience); =shi marks hearsay; and =chi marks conjecture and/or inference.³ The following sentences provide a minimal contrast illustrating the use of these particles. Each of the sentences contains the same basic propositional content (You also hit me); the choice of particle indicates how the speaker came to believe this proposition.

(2) Huallaga Quechua evidentials (Weber 1989: 421)

a. Qam-pis maqa-ma-shka-nki =mi.

you-also hit-1.obj-prf-2.subj =direct

‘You also hit me (I saw and/or felt it).’

b. Qam-pis maqa-ma-shka-nki =shi.

you-also hit-1.obj-prf-2.subj =hearsay

‘(Someone told me that) you also hit me (I was drunk and can’t remember).’

c. Qam-pis maqa-ma-shka-nki =chi.

you-also hit-1.obj-prf-2.subj =conject

‘(I infer that) you also hit me.’

(I was attacked by a group of people, and I believe you were one of them).

A few languages are reported to have five or even six grammatically distinguished evidential categories. A widely cited example of a five-category system is Tuyuca, a Tucanoan language of Colombia. Evidentiality in Tuyuca is marked by portmanteau suffixes which indicate tense and subject agreement, as well as evidential category, and these suffixes are obligatory in every finite clause in the language.⁴ The use of these five evidential categories is illustrated by the minimal contrasts in (3).

(3) Tuyuca evidential system (Barnes 1984)

a. díiga apé -wi

soccer play -visual

‘He played soccer.’ (I saw him play.)

b. díiga apé -ti

soccer play -nonvisual

‘He played soccer.’ (I heard the game and him, but I didn’t see it or him.)

c. díiga apé -yi

soccer play -inference

‘He played soccer.’ (I have seen evidence that he played: his distinctive shoe print on the playing field. But I did not see him play.)

d. díiga apé -yigi

soccer play -hearsay

‘He played soccer.’ (I obtained the information from someone else.)

e. díiga apé -hĩyi

soccer play -assumed

‘He played soccer.’ (It is reasonable to assume that he did.)

The visual category (3a) is used for states or events which the speaker actually sees, for actions performed by the speaker, and for “timeless” knowledge which is shared by the community. The nonvisual category (3b) is used for information which the speaker perceived directly by some sense other than seeing; that is, by hearing, smell, touch, or taste. The inference category (3c), which Barnes labels “apparent”, is used for conclusions which the speaker draws based on direct evidence. The hearsay category (3d), which Barnes labels “secondhand”, is used for information which the speaker has heard from someone else. The assumed category (3e) is used for information which the speaker assumes based on background knowledge about the situation.

¹ Pulte (1985); Pulte uses the terms “experienced past” vs. “nonexperienced past”.

² If any single constituent in the sentence gets narrow focus, the evidential clitic follows the focused constituent. If not, the clitic occupies its default position after the verb.

³ Weber (1989).

⁴ Barnes (1984).