Evidentiality in Tatar

Teija Greed

Secondary MA Thesis for General Linguistics

University of Helsinki, 12 June 2009

Abstract

Evidentiality is a grammatical category with which the speaker expresses the source of the information conveyed using grammatical means. By use of certain markers such as affixes or particles the speaker can show, for example, that she is passing on firsthand information which she acquired through visual perception, or that she is expressing non-firsthand information heard from others. Since the only purpose of evidentiality is to express information source, the speaker’s epistemic stance, for instance, her position in relation to the reliability of the message, is not directly discernible from it. Such evaluation of reliability belongs to the area of another grammatical category, modality. Nevertheless, certain overlap can be observed in these two categories in many languages, including Tatar.

Tatar is among the 25 per cent of the world’s languages with evidentiality. Evidentiality is a significant feature of Tatar, and its understanding is important for successful communication. Therefore one of the emphases of my thesis is to study evidentiality in discourse context. As examples I use narrative texts. The main source of my study is Alexandra Aikhenvald’s book “Evidentiality” (2004), which discusses the topic extensively from a typological and functional perspective. In the discussion of Turkic languages I lean especially on Lars Johanson’s (1998, 2000) views.

Aikhenvald describes four different types of evidentiality, and this fourfold division is based on how many choices a language has for expressing different evidential meanings. The choices are expressed by means of six semantic parameters (VISUAL, SENSORY, INFERENCE, ASSUMPTION, HEARSAY, QUOTATIVE). Evidentiality occurs in languages as systems or strategies. In an evidentiality system, information source is the primary, default meaning of the marker which codes it, that is, the evidential. In an evidential strategy some other grammatical category, for example, aspect, has developed an additional evidential meaning.

In Tatar, evidentiality does not form a coherent system. However, Aikhenvald’s system of semantic parameters can be applied to it in a meaningful way. Evidentiality is expressed in Tatar with past tense verb affixes and particles. Verb affixes fit under Aikhenvald’s type A1 but the descriptive parameters that I use for the Tatar type differ from Aikhenvald’s basic parameters. The Tatar basic parameters are DIRECT and INDIRECT, which describe more accurately the nuances of the meaning of the -DY and -GAn affixes coding these meanings. The original tense/aspect meaning of these affixes has expanded to cover the meaning of evidentiality. I call the Tatar type A1T. When including particles in the discussion, Tatar comes close to Aikhenvald’s type C3 (with parameters DIRECT, INFERENCE, REPORTED, QUOTATIVE). The Tatar type which I call C3T distinguishes, however, between the INFERRED and ASSUMED meanings. The particle ikän has expanded from a modal meaning to express also the evidential meaning of ASSUMPTION. Tatar has two particles which fulfil the condition of an evidential proper: their primary meaning is evidential. The particle di expresses REPORTED information, and the particle dip is used in direct and indirect speech to code a QUOTATIVE meaning.

Evidentiality has an important connection with discourse. Certain evidentials can develop into “tokens of genre”. In Tatar, for example, the verb affixes -GAn and -DY function in this role: the -GAn form is used of events of distant past, whereas -DY is a token of realistic fiction, for example, of narrative in novels and short stories. An evidential marker does not in itself express other than information source. This has turned out to be true concerning the -GAn form which is central in my study. From a modal point of view, it is neutral. In context, however, it can acquire a modal evaluative meaning. If, for example, a verb form with -GAn occurs together with the particle di expressing REPORTED information, the hearer/reader understands that the reliability of the message/text conveyed is not fully certain. The affix -DY can, on the other hand, receive a contextual meaning of reliable information. Thus it is the context that is a key factor in defining the grammatical status or function of the affixes and particles involved in the coding of evidentiality, as well as in their interpretation.

1

Contents

0. Introduction 1

1. General about evidentiality 3

1.1. Definition of evidentiality 4

1.2. Expression of evidentiality 6

1.3. Evidentiality system vs. evidentiality strategy 7

1.4. Evidentiality and other categories 8

1.5. Evidentiality and discourse 9

2. Aikhenvald’s evidentiality systems 9

3. Evidentiality in Turkic languages 11

3.1 Evidentiality of Turkish past tense verbs 12

4. Expression of evidentiality in Tatar 14

4.1. Verb affixes functioning as evidentials 14

4.1.1. Tatar simple past: result vs. dynamic action 14

4.1.2. -GAn in evidential function 16

4.1.3. -GAn and discourse 18

4.1.4. -DY – neutral or FIRSTHAND? 19

4.2. Particles functioning as evidentials 21

4.2.1. ikän – ASSUMED evidential 22

4.2.2. di – REPORTED evidential 24

4.2.3. dip – QUOTATIVE evidential 25

5. Tatar on Aikhenvald’s scaling 26

5.1. Examples of Tatar evidentiality 28

6. Conclusion 32

References 35

Appendix 37

Abbreviations 37

2

0. Introduction

In most languages of the world – if not all – speakers can use various means to

express how they acquired the information they are communicating; that is, their

information source. Information source can be expressed lexically and

grammatically. Lexical expression appears to be more common across languages,

but there are hundreds of languages where grammatical expression of information

source plays an important role in the overall linguistic system. Grammatical

expression of information source is called evidentiality (Aikhenvald 2004: 1). In

evidentiality, information source is the primary, default meaning of the

grammatical entity.

Evidentiality has practical implication to translation work. I first

encountered this phenomenon when working with a Tatar translator. Frequently I

had to ask myself why the translator did not choose the past tense form that I

expected her to choose, but instead another form. In addition, the two forms were

not interchangeable. The key to the problem was whether the speaker was

expected to have witnessed the event under consideration, or not. As in real-life

communication, so also in translation it is essential that the information source be

coded appropriately.

In the past, evidentiality has been studied in Turkic languages in varying

degrees. More extensive studies have been conducted in Turkish. Turkic

evidentiality has been discussed, for example, by Johanson (1998: 45; 2000) and

Turkish by Aksu-Koç and Slobin (1986). In the book The Turkic Languages

(Johanson & Csató 1998), evidentiality is discussed briefly in the articles on

individual languages (see, for example, Schönig (1998: 269) on Turkmen, and

Boeschoten (1998: 368) on Uzbek). F. Jusupov (1986: 135-136) touches on

evidentiality (without naming the term) in various Turkic languages (including the

languages of Kazak, Uzbek, Uighur and Kyrgyz, and Tatar dialects) in his

discussion on the multi-faceted Turkic verb affix -Yp1. More recently evidentiality

in Turkmen has been studied by Gray (2007).

1 Concepts that are connected with this affix are, for example, non-eyewitnessed action, reported action, and something called “past subjective” in Uzbek.

3

In Tatar linguistics, evidentiality has been typically discussed in the

context of tense/aspect; particularly in connection with the Tatar resultative past

tense affix -GAn. The emphasis in the discussion is on the concept of “non-

witnessed” (action), in Russian neochevidnost’. More recently, within the Russian

linguistic context, the term ÷videncial’nost’ ‘evidentiality’ (sometimes

zasvidetel’stvovannost’ ‘witnessedness’) has started appearing as a topic of

research. Some studies of evidentiality have also been conducted on the Tatar

language2.

This paper discusses the grammatical category of evidentiality in the Tatar

language. As a theoretical basis I use Alexandra Aikhenvald’s book

“Evidentiality” (2004), which discusses evidentiality systems across languages.

The emphasis in Aikhenvald’s work is on languages with a fully-fledged

evidentiality system. While Tatar does not have a grammatically coherent

evidentiality system, it does use evidentiality as an important strategy in

conveying information source. Therefore Aikhenvald’s treatment of the topic

offers a helpful framework for discussing even a less substantial evidentiality

strategy, such as Tatar has.

Small capitals are used for the meanings that are encoded by evidentials.

Transliteration of Tatar examples from Cyrillic script attempts to make explicit

some features of pronunciation that are not reflected in the Tatar orthography (for

example, the difference between [k] and [q]). The examples are mainly from

narrative, to limit the scope of the study. A major perspective is to look at

evidentiality from the point of view of discourse. An aspect that cannot be

avoided is the relationship between evidentiality and modality.

1. General about evidentiality

Every language has some way of referring to how the speaker found out about

what she/he is saying, that is, what the speaker’s information source is. A

common way of expressing information source is by lexical means, for example,

2 See, for example, N. V. Vlodavskaja’s study at http://www.dialog-21.ru/materials/archive.asp?id=6253&vol=6077&y=2000.

4

with verbs or adverbs. English is a language which uses verbs to express

information source: the meaning of the verb allege in the phrase The alleged killer

of X (Aikhenvald 2004: 10) suggests that the claim is unsubstantiated, assumed.

1.1. Definition of evidentiality

In addition to lexical means, some languages can express information source by

grammatical3 means. This is what Aikhenvald (2004: 1) calls evidentiality: it is

the “grammatical category, whose primary [emphasis mine] meaning is

information source”. It is estimated that the category of evidentiality occurs in

approximately 25 per cent of the world’s languages. Languages which have

evidentiality range from languages like Tariana spoken in northwest Amazonia

(see Aikhenvald 2004: 1-4) with an extensive five-term evidentiality system to

some Iranian and Turkic languages (see ibid.: 11) with an evidentiality strategy,

where other categories, for example, tense or aspect, assume the role of an

evidential.

The following examples show two of the five distinct evidential markers

used in the Tariana evidentiality system (Aikhenvald 2004: 2). In this language

the evidentiality is fused with tense.

(1) Juse iɾida di-manika-ka. José football 3SG.nf-play-REC.P.VIS ‘José has played football (we saw it).’

(2) Juse iɾida di-manika-pidaka. José football 3sgnf-play-REC.P.REP ‘José has played football (we were told).’4

3 For Aikhenvald (2004: 11), “Grammar is taken to deal with closed systems, which can be realized through bound morphemes, clitics, and words which belong to full grammatical classes, such as prepositions, preverbs, or particles.” 4 nf = non-feminine; REC = reciprocal; P = past; VIS = visual; REP = reported.

5

In addition to the VISUAL (example 1) and the REPORTED (example 2) evidentials,

Tariana also has a NON-VISUAL, INFERRED (from visual evidence), and ASSUMED

(on the basis of what is already known) evidential.

The fact that evidentiality is not limited to any particular “type” of

language is shown by a slight “oddity” among Creole and Pidgin languages which

do not usually have evidentials: in Chinese Pidgin Russian evidentiality is the

only obligatory category to be expressed by verbal inflection (see Aikhenvald

2004: 8, Chafe & Nichols 1986: xi).

Aikhenvald (2004: 5-7) points out that evidentiality is purely to do with

the ways in which information is acquired – whether by seeing, hearing, or in

some other way. It has nothing to do with the speaker’s ‘epistemic stance’, her/his

expressed position as to the reliability of the information.

Van Valin and LaPolla’s (1997: 43) definition of evidentials comes close

to Aikhenvald’s understanding of evidentiality: “Evidentials refer to the sources

of information which form the basis of what we are saying.” However, some other

linguists see evidentiality differently: for example, Palmer (1986) sees

evidentiality as a subcategory of modality: he discusses “evidentials” under

epistemic modality. He defines modality broadly as a category to do with

speaker’s attitudes and knowledge (ibid.: 224-225). Evidentiality is “indication by

the speaker of his (lack of) commitment to the truth of the proposition being

expressed” (ibid.: 51). Even though evidentials come under modality, he

comments that evidentials may not be strictly modal at all (ibid.: 224). For Palmer

modality is a wider concept than for Aikhenvald, who sees modality as a

“grammatical category covering the degree of certainty of the statement” (2004:

394). Thus, Palmer considers evidentiality to be closely linked to the truth value

of the proposition, and therefore it is more “subjective”, whereas Aikhenvald

states that what is in the forefront is purely the “objective” way in which

information is acquired.

Chafe & Nichols (1986: vii) consider that evidentiality has to do with the

source and reliability of knowledge. It also involves attitudes. Aikhenvald (2004:

5, footnote 1) criticises their view, suggesting that it causes the sharp boundaries

between evidentiality and various modalities to be blurred; their approach

6

“subsumes specification of probability, degree of precision or truth, and various

[semantic] extensions typically expressed with modalities”.

Another point of view is presented by Blass (1990) who discusses

evidentials in a relevance-theory framework. She criticises Palmer’s (1986) view

that the function of the so-called hearsay particles (evidentials) would reflect the

speaker’s degree of commitment to the information (ibid.: 93-94). Using data

from the Sissala language of West Africa, she proposes that a Sissala ‘hearsay’

particle rέ, “and other ‘hearsay’ particles in other languages, have the function of

indicating to the hearer that the utterance which contains them is interpretively

used”. Thus the speaker uses this linguistic device “to guide the hearer towards

the intended interpretation” (ibid.: 104).

To summarise, Aikhenvald believes evidentiality is a distinct grammatical

category; not a subcategory of any type of modality (2004: 7), or of tense/aspect.

In some languages with an extensive evidentiality system, (for example, Quechua

or Tariana), evidential markers can occur together with markers of other

categories, such as “hypothetical modality and irrealis” on one verb or clause,

which is an indication that evidentiality is a category distinct from modality. The

crucial role of evidentiality is shown by the fact that if a speaker of a language

like Tariana were to omit an evidential marker, the resulting sentence would be

“ungrammatical and highly unnatural” (ibid.: 1-2).

The marking of grammatical evidentiality in the languages in which it

occurs is in most cases “a must” (Aikhenvald 2004: 6). It is only in some

languages where an evidential may be omitted if the context makes the

information source otherwise clear.

1.2. Expression of evidentiality

Languages use different grammatical means to express evidentiality. Some

languages have special affixes or clitics for marking evidentiality, others use

particles, or special verb forms. In some languages evidentiality marking is fused

with another category. (Aikhenvald 2004.)

7

The complexity of evidentiality systems vary from language to language.

The meanings that they convey may also differ (Aikhenvald 2004: 23). In some

languages the choice of an evidential may be independent of the clause type,

modality, or tense/aspect with which it occurs; in others, a choice of evidential

may depend on tense, aspect, or clause type. Evidentiality is generally

distinguished only in the past tense, only a few languages do so in the future

(ibid.: 8).

What evidential is chosen often correlates with person. Some evidentials

may not occur in a context with first person. It may sound counterintuitive that a

person speaking about her/himself would use an evidential indicating that what

she/he is reporting is based on someone else’s experience or words, or inferred on

the basis of some visible result, but such seemingly unusual expressions in first

person occur in some languages. They may produce additional semantic effects:

an INFERRED evidential may describe something that “the speaker cannot

remember, or does not want to take responsibility for, or did inadvertently”

(Aikhenvald 2004: 8-9). Tatar and Turkish use first person in the context of

INFERRED evidential. The following example is from Turkish.

(3) Uyu-muş-um. sleep-mIş-1SG ‘I must have fallen asleep.’ (Aksu-Koç & Slobın 1986: 160.)

In some languages evidentiality forms one obligatory inflectional system,

with information source as its core meaning. In other languages, evidentiality does

not form a coherent category: meanings are expressed using different grammatical

mechanisms. (Aikhenvald 2004: 9.)

1.3. Evidentiality system vs. evidentiality strategy

If a language has grammatical coding whose default meaning is to do with

information source, this language has an evidentiality system proper. So, for a

morpheme to be considered an evidential, information source has to be its default

8

interpretation. An example of a language with an evidentiality system is Tariana

(see examples (1) and (2) on page 4).

However, there are many languages without a fully-fledged evidentiality

system, which still have evidential-like meanings. These meanings are expressed

by other grammatical categories, for example by conditional mood, or a passive.

According to Aikhenvald (2004: 11), such languages have an evidentiality

strategy. French has an evidentiality strategy using conditional; the so-called

‘conditional of uncertain information’ is used to relate information obtained from

a source for which the speaker does not take any responsibility. In Georgian,

perfect has similar connotations.

Many Turkic languages, including for the most part Tatar, have an

evidentiality strategy or strategies: categories whose primary meanings are other

than evidential are extended to cover meanings to do with information source. The

following Tatar example is from an interview published in the paper Qäef niček?

(Wälieva 2007). The interviewer narrates the experiences of those interviewed

consistently using the Tatar resultative past tense form -GAn. The context is that

of an interviewer who has not witnessed the events described, therefore an

evidential with the meaning of NON-WITNESSED (REPORTED) information is used.

(4) Qadaq suyryšyrγa awyldan Marat isemle nail to.pull.out from.village Marat with.name abyj järdämgä kil-gän. uncle for.help come-GAn(NW) ‘An older man called Marat came from the village to help to pull out the nails.’

1.4. Evidentiality and other categories

Even though evidentiality can be seen as a separate grammatical category,

evidentials may acquire secondary meanings to do with, for example, the

reliability, probability, and possibility of information. This way it may overlap

with modality. For example, hypothetical modality and a NON-FIRSTHAND

evidential may overlap: both could be used for something that one has not

9

observed and about which one may therefore have reservations. (Aikhenvald

2004: 6.)

The reverse can also happen: non-evidential categories can acquire

secondary meanings that are typical of evidentials. This would be the case with

languages with an evidentiality strategy. How the semantic extensions of

evidentials overlap with the meanings of other categories depends “on the

individual system, and on the semantics of each individual evidential term”

Aikhenvald (2004: 7).

1.5. Evidentiality and discourse

Evidentiality can have an important connection with discourse. A particular

evidential may be preferred depending on discourse genre. Such genre markers or

‘tokens’ are common in narrative. For example, without a REPORTED evidential, a

story may not be a story for the speakers of a particular language. (Aikhenvald

2004: 9.) In West Greenlandic, the reported enclitic -guuq is the token for the

traditional narrative genre (ibid.: 310).

Evidentials can also be used for stylistic purposes: an unexpected choice of

an evidential may acquire a nuance of, for example, sarcasm or irony. In narrative,

choices of evidentials may correlate with backgrounding or foregrounding. The

fact that speakers are aware of their necessity so much so that an “evidentially

unmarked statement ... may be treated with suspicion and ultimately contempt”

shows the importance of evidentials for human cognition. (Aikhenvald 2004: 9.)

A NON-FIRSTHAND evidential may have a distancing function. This is

especially common in small evidentiality systems A1 and A2 with two contrasting

evidentials (see discussion in Section 2). The distancing function can be used to

differentiate background and foreground information. For example, in Abkhaz, an

aside comment by the narrator is expressed using a NON-FIRSTHAND evidential

within discourse which is otherwise neutral in terms of evidentiality. (Aikhenvald

2004: 317.)

If different contrasting evidentials alternate within a discourse, this may

reflect a shift in the perspective from the speaker’s perspective to someone else’s

10

perspective. For example, a DIRECT evidential can express the speaker’s

perspective, and a REPORTED evidential someone else’s perspective, as in Pastaza

Quechua. Using a REPORTED evidential does not imply any doubt by the speaker.

On the other hand, the speaker does not need to have experienced the event

her/himself to be able to use a DIRECT evidential. In some languages, the speaker’s

personal involvement with the discourse conveyed can be “just as good as

personal experience”, and therefore she/he can use a DIRECT evidential to

corroborate the fact stated. (Aikhenvald 2004: 318-320.)

Manipulating evidentials can be an artful way of creating “the effect of

polyphony”: not only one voice (perspective) is heard, but instead many voices5

(ibid.: 321).

2. Aikhenvald’s evidentiality systems

Aikhenvald (2004) divides attested evidentiality systems into four types according

to the number of choices each one has for encoding an information source, and

according to their marking. Type A has two choices, type B three choices, type C

a four-way system, and D is reserved for systems which have five or more

encoded information sources. Only a few languages with five choices have been

clearly analysed. One of the more researched ones is Tariana (see page 3), in

which Aikhenvald herself conducted research.

Aikhenvald (2004: 65) presents the established types of evidentiality

systems throughout the world in a table (see TABLE 1 on page 11), using the

following recurrent semantic parameters: 1. VISUAL, 2. NON-VISUAL SENSORY, 3.

INFERENCE, 4. ASSUMPTION, 5. HEARSAY, and 6. QUOTATIVE. She comments that

no systems have been found where all six specifications were expressed (ibid: 63-

64). The table does not include types A2, A3, A5, and B5. These have a system

with a contrast between one semantic specification vs. ‘everything else’, and they

are defined as the following: A2 – NON-FIRSTHAND vs. everything else, A3 –

REPORTED vs. everything else, A5 – AUDITORY vs. everything else, and B5 –

QUOTATIVE vs. everything else.

5 See about Bakhtin’s concept of polyphony in Lähteenmäki 2002.

11

TABLE 1. Semantic parameters of evidentiality systems. (Aikhenvald 2004: 65.)

I. VISUAL II. SENSORY III. INFERENCE IV. ASSUMPTION V. HEARSAY VI. QUOTATIVE

2 choices A1 firsthand non-firsthand

A1 firsthand non-firsthand

A1 firsthand non-firsthand different system or <no term>

A4 <no term> non-visual <no term> reported

3 choices B1 direct inferred reported

B2 visual non-visual inferred <no term>

B2 visual non-visual inferred

B3 visual non-visual <no term> reported

B4 <no term> non-visual inferred reported

4 choices C1 visual non-visual inferred reported

C2 direct inferred assumed reported

C3 direct inferred reported quotative

5 choices D1 visual non-visual inferred assumed reported

The explanations of the terms used in TABLE 1 are given in the Appendix (page

37).

3. Evidentiality in Turkic languages

When discussing evidentials in Turkic languages, Comrie (2000: 3) writes, “[I]n

Turkic languages, the basic contrast is between a marked evidential (with a

number of more particular interpretations, such as reported information, inferred

information, perceived information) and a form that is unmarked in respect to

evidentiality.”

Johanson (1998, 2000) discusses evidentiality in Turkic under the topic of

“indirectivity”. Indirectives are the equivalent of non-firsthand evidentials

(Aikhenvald 2004: 30). Johanson points out that “Turkic languages are strikingly

similar with respect to the encoding of indirectivity, though the conventions of

formal marking may vary in the individual languages.” Johanson (2000: 61-62)

sees indirectivity as a cognitive category that is an integral part in the grammar of

Turkic languages.

12

Johanson (1998: 45) defines indirectives as evidentials which “qualify the

experience of the event spoken about”. He argues that “indirectivity is the

linguistic expression of ‘En appears to P’” (where En = narrated event). Here “a

narrated event En is not stated directly, but in an indirect way: by reference to its

reception by a conscious subject P” (2000: 61). The type of source of information

(Johanson: ‘knowledge’) is unessential – whether it was through hearsay, logical

conclusion or direct perception6. What is important is that the event was stated

indirectly.

In addition to verb affixes, “tense-indifferent” particles are also used in

Turkic languages as evidentials (indirectives). These include the eken type with a

basic meaning of ‘as is/was obvious’ or ‘as it turns/turned out’ (Johanson 1998:

45), and the imiş type whose typical meaning is to do with hearsay or inference

(see, for example, Lewis 2000: 99 on Turkish).

3.1 Evidentiality of Turkish past tense verbs

Aksu-Koç and Slobin (1986: 159) comment on Turkish past tense expressions that

there is an obligatory choice between one of two verb suffixes -dI and -mIş

[mIsh]. According to them, the first form is to do with “direct experience”. For

example:

(5) Ahmet gel-di. Ahmet come-dI ‘Ahmet came/has come.’7

Lewis (2000:129) describes the -dI form as the form which is used when

“relating past events positively known to the speaker”. The -mIş form “encodes

events to which the speaker was not a direct or fully conscious participant” (Aksu-

Koç & Slobin 1986: 159). It conveys inference and hearsay. For example:

6 I assume this particular case is to do with direct experience of P of the result of the event, and could be translated as ‘as it obvious’, ‘as it turns out’ – (see Johanson 1998: 45). Thus is would not contradict the idea of indirectness. 7 This example has been formed on the basis of Lewis’ (2000: 128) description of ‘di-past’.

13

(6) Ahmet gel-miş. Ahmet come-mIş ‘Ahmet came/must have come.’

So, without seeing Ahmet but seeing his coat in the hall the speaker may infer that

Ahmet is in. Or the speaker may have been told that Ahmet has arrived but she/he

has not seen him yet.

The Turkish -mIş also has a special narrative function: it is used in

accounts of unreal events, such as folktales, dreams, and jokes; whereas generally

familiar events, for example, those related in historical accounts and realistic

fiction, “are usually reported in the past [tense] of direct experience, -dI”. (Aksu-

Koç & Slobin 1986: 160.)

Further two examples8, quoted in Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 44),

compare how one and the same affix is used both in its aspectual and its evidential

sense in Turkish. In example (7) (which is equivalent to example (6)), -mIş

receives an evidential interpretation of inference:

(7) Gel-miş-Ø. come-INFER-3SG (V-EVID9) ‘I gather that he has come.’

In example (8) -mIş has the aspectual function of perfect, and is followed by a

past tense marker.

(8) Gel-miş-ti-Ø. come-PERF-PST-3SG (V-ASPECT-TENSE) ‘He had come.’

8 Example is from Watters 1993. See reference in Van Valin & LaPolla 1997. 9 V = verb; EVID = evidential.

14

4. Expression of evidentiality in Tatar

The grammatical means used in Tatar to express information source are verb

affixes and particles. As far as verb affixes are concerned, evidentiality is mainly

expressed in past tense10. The particles ikän, di, and dip can connect with any

tense, but there are some restrictions with ikän: it cannot combine with the

categorical past tense affix -DY (TG 1993: 109).

In terms of evidentiality system vs. strategy, Tatar is a mixed case. As far

as verb affixes and the particle ikän are concerned, Tatar uses an evidentiality

strategy, since these do not have information source as their default meaning, but

other grammatical categories – tense/aspect and modality respectively – have

developed secondary meanings of evidentiality. As to the particles di and dip, they

are evidentials proper11 – their primary meaning is information source.

4.1. Verb affixes functioning as evidentials

4.1.1. Tatar simple past: result vs. dynamic action

Tatar has several past tense forms, but we will limit ourselves to the forms most

common in narrative, which also contrast each other in the area of evidentiality: to

the categorical past form -DY, and the resultative past form -GAn.12

For -DY Tatar Grammar (TG 1993: 106-108) gives as a basic meaning

“the expression of evident, whole, single event in the past”. This form is

‘dynamic’: it allows for expression of quick change of actions, and their con-

secutive dynamic unfolding. This characteristic of -DY is contrasted with -GAn,

whose meaning focuses on result.

10 Tatar has two future tense affixes, the indefinite future -Ar/(Y)r and the categorical future -AčAK/jAčAK, which can be understood modally. This is a topic for another study. 11 Diachronically di and dip could be regarded as being a part of an evidentiality strategy, since they were originally verb forms. However, synchronically, after having gone through grammaticalisation, they have become particles functioning as evidentials proper. 12 The other past tense forms (for example, the distant past forms), which are formed periphrastically, seem to acquire the evidentiality status of the finite verb of the construction.

15

The form -DY has a wide variety of meanings, including figurative senses.

When looking at the meaning of this form from the point of view of the speaker, it

is seen as an action the happening of which is without any doubt and is apparent

to the speaker (TG 1993: 110). This meaning is contrasted with the NON-

WITNESSED meaning of the -GAn form.

As to the resultative past form -GAn, its semantic potential is greater than

in some other Turkic languages, which in addition to a resultative past form also

have a form called ‘past subjective’ (formed with -Yp). In Tatar the affix -GAn

covers both these meanings13. The basic meaning of this form is to designate past

resultative action, connected with the time of speaking.

The contrast between the two past tense forms can be seen in the following

examples:

(9) Rišat qajt-qan. Rišat return-GAn ‘Rišat returned/has returned.’ (10) Rišat qajt-ty. Rišat return-DY ‘Rišat returned.’

In (9) -GAn indicates that someone has returned, and is visible, or at least the

signs of her/his return are visible. In (10) the accent is on the dynamism of the

action, the action itself. There is a further nuance: the speaker has witnessed Rišat

returning, for example, she/he has seen Rišat coming through the door

(Mugtasimova14, p.c.). (See section 4.1.2.)

The contrast is visible also when -GAn expresses a state as the result of an

action. For example,

13 The -Yp form occurs in some Tatar dialects with the past subjective meaning (TG 1993: 110). See also Jusupov 1986. 14 I am greatly indebted to G. R. Mugtasimova of Kazan State University for her invaluable help.

16

(11) Rišat jäšär-gän Rišat become.younger-GAn ‘Rišat has become younger.’ (12) Rišat jäšär-de Rišat become.younger-DY ‘Rišat became younger.’

In (11) the result is in focus, in (12) the action.

4.1.2. -GAn in evidential function

Tatar Grammar (1993: 110) sees the aspectual meaning ‘result’ of -GAn as the

primary meaning of this form, which has then developed into an evidential

meaning, called “non-witnessedness” by Tatar Grammar. -GAn is seen as

consisting of several meaning components: it shows an action that precedes the

moment of speech (tense), secondly, it expresses resultative action (aspect), and

thirdly non-witnessed action (evidentiality – Tatar Grammar calls this ‘modality’).

In the following examples the NON-WITNESSED/WITNESSED statuses of the

past tense forms are contrasted:

(13) Bügen Mäskäydä (irtän) jaŋγyr jau-γan. today in.Moscow from.the.morning rain pour-GAn ‘Today it rained in Moscow (from the morning).’ (14) Bügen Mäskäydä jaŋγyr jau-dy. today in.Moscow rain rain-DY ‘Today it rained in Moscow.’

Example (13) was spoken by someone who did not witness the rain

directly and was not actually in Moscow; she/he may have heard of it on the

phone from a friend who was in Moscow, or seen the rain on television. Example

(14) shows the words of someone who had direct experience of the rain.

17

(Mugtasimova, p.c.) Thus the main semantic contrast between the two verb forms

is to do with the parameter INDIRECT/DIRECT.

In some contexts, the aspectual and evidential meanings of -GAn can occur

alone or co-occur. In the following example the two meanings occur together:

(15) Malajnyŋ äjtüenä qaraγanda, annary boy.GEN to.his.speaking when.looking.at then ul alma satučy, atyn žaj γyna boryp, that apple.(ACC) seller his.horse.ACC easily turning bezneŋ awyldan čyγyp kit-kän. our.GEN from.village going.out go.away-GAn(ASP+NW) ‘According to the boy’s words, that apple seller then turned his horse easily and rode out from our village.’ (Example from F Xösni; TG 1993: 111.)

The evidential meaning of the past tense form kitkän ‘went away’ is

strengthened by the adverbial expression ‘according to the boy’s words’, and thus

the context gives an interpretation of a REPORTED event which the speaker did not

witness. Without the adverbial expression the verb would still suggest a NON-

WITNESSED, NON-FIRSTHAND/INDIRECT action, but not necessarily a REPORTED

event. Instead, it could be interpreted as an INFERENCE: the speaker may have seen

some evidence showing that the apple seller had left.

In Tatar this evidentiality strategy can also be used in the 1st person

singular. The action is seen as something that happened in the past, independent of

the will of the speaker, or it can be an action which she/he cannot remember:

(16) Min suγyš aldynnan tu-γan-myn. I war before be.born-GAn-1SG ‘I was born before the war.’ (Jusupov R. 2008: 137.)

In this example the semantic extension of -GAn is INFERENCE. (Cf example (2) on

page (4).)

18

4.1.3. -GAn and discourse

The form -GAn can be used to state past events, for example, in biographic

narrative (TG 1993: 112). This may follow from the fact that since the first

meaning of this form is the resultative meaning, the action is seen as a whole, not

as a process. The following example is from biographical narrative:

(17) Ätise Čulmanda, jäγ’’ni Qamada, paroxodta his.dad in.Chulman that.is in.Kama in.steamship matros bulyp ešlä-gän. Änise Čistajda sailor being work-GAn(NW) his.mum in.Chistopol tu-γan. Wäli üze bašta Čulmanda be.born-GAn(NW) Wäli himself at.first in.Chulman baržada jör-gän. on.barge go-GAn(NW) ‘His dad worked in a steamship as a sailor in Chulman, that is Kama. His mum was born in Chistopol. Wäli himself was at first working in Chulman on a barge.’ (Example from G Äpsälämov, TG 1993: 112.)

The events in example (17) are not part of a consecutive narrative, they are

statements of facts about somebody’s life. From a discourse point of view they

look like background information. The use of -GAn to convey background

information is common also in narrative discourse.

Tatar Grammar (1993: 112) comments that in example (17) the writer

states objective trustworthy actions, basing his knowledge on documents or other

people’s words. In cases such as this the meaning of NON-WITNESSED action is in

the forefront.

The form -GAn can also refer to non-witnessed distant past. Historical

accounts are often written in this form15. (See example 23 on page 26.) It is also

used in another genre: in fictive stories, for example, folk tales and fairy stories.

This genre shares with historical accounts the feature of having been set in distant

15 Another common form is the present tense.

19

past, but as to its truthfulness, these two types seem to be at opposite ends. Let us

look at the following example taken from a popular Tatar folk tale:

(18) Boryn zamanda ber äbi belän babaj ancient in.time a grandmother with grandfather bulgan, di. Bolarnyŋ tuγan be-GAn(NW) say.PR.3 of.these having.been.born ber balalary ülä bar-γan, di. all.of their.children die ITR-GAn(NW) say.PR.3 Šunnan ber waqyt äbi ber qyz from.then one time grandmother a girl kiter-gän. Isemen Zöhrä dip quš-qan-nar. bring.forth-GAn(NW) her.name.ACC Zöhrä QUOT call-GAn-3PL ‘Once upon a time there was an old woman with an old man, it is told. They had one child after another born to them who all died, it is told. Then one day the old woman gave birth to a girl. They called her Zöhrä.’ (Äkijätlär, 1 kitap; TG 1993: 112.)

How does the reader not get confused concerning the truthfulness of the

text if both a historical account and a fairy tale use the same verb form -GAn? I

suggest that it is the context that plays a vitally important role when -GAn is used

for narrative set in distant past: the discourse itself gives many cues concerning

the nature of the narrative. These cues may be lexical, like the adverbial

expression Boryn, boryn zamanda ‘Once upon a time’ (literally: ‘In ancient,

ancient times’) introducing a fairy story, or grammatical (see 4.2.2. for discussion

on di). Therefore I suggest that the verb affix -GAn in itself does not carry a

meaning related to reliability and truthfulness, but it is the surrounding context

that can give this modal nuance to the discourse.

4.1.4. -DY – neutral or FIRSTHAND?

In evidentiality systems (or strategies) not all forms are necessarily marked with

respect to evidentiality. There can also be ‘evidentiality-neutral’ forms. This is the

20

case when a system has one overtly marked evidential contrasting to an

‘everything else’ form. In such a default form the information source has not been

specified. For example, Aikhenvald’s type A2 follows this system: there the

opposition is between NON-FIRSTHAND and ‘the rest’. (Aikhenvald 2004: 75.)

What can be said about the status of the Tatar -DY form in this respect? If

the opposition between the -DY and the -GAn forms is a contrast between the

semantic parameters FIRSTHAND and NON-FIRSTHAND, respectively, Tatar follows

Aikhenvald’s A1 system, but if -DY is neutral, Tatar follows A2, at least as far as

verbs are concerned.

When describing the mistakes that translators make when translating from

Russian into Tatar, R. Jusupov mentions the excessive use of the -DY past tense

form at the expense of other possible past tense forms (see discussion in Jusupov

R. 2008: 136-142). This would suggest that the -DY form is the unmarked, default

past tense form to the average speaker.

Johanson describes the evidentiality contrast of Turkish verb forms as

evidentials vs. unmarked “non-evidentials”. The speaker chooses the unmarked

form if she/he “considers the evidential distinction unessential”. (Aikhenvald

2004: 40 quoting Johanson 200316: 276). Thus she/he makes a deliberate choice

not to express evidentiality. The Turkish unmarked form is neutral. Here Johanson

disagrees with many other Turkic scholars who interpret the Turkish -dI past as

‘direct experience’ with overtones to ‘commitment to the truth of the statement’.

(See section 3.1.)

As to the Tatar situation, like in Turkish, the -DY past tense form appears

to be unmarked. However, since its basic (although not obligatory) meaning is to

do with direct experience, I find it more useful to call the Tatar evidentiality

strategy (for verbs) as following Aikhenvald’s type A1 (that is, FIRSTHAND vs.

NON-FIRSTHAND). This is, however, not to claim that the -DY form – as opposed to

-GAn – also marks ‘commitment to the truth of the statement’. It is the context

that gives this discourse interpretation.

16 Johanson, Lars. 2003. “12. Evidentiality in Turkic”. In Studies in Evidentiality, Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R.M.W. Dixon (eds.). John Benjamins, Typological Studies in Language, 54. 273–290.

21

4.2. Particles functioning as evidentials

In addition to verb affixes, particles are also involved in Tatar evidentiality.

Particle is here understood as “[a] term used in grammatical description to refer to

an invariable item with grammatical function, especially one which does not

readily fit into a standard classification of parts of speech” (Crystal 2003: 338).

Thus, in this paper the discussion is not limited to morphological expression of

evidentiality but includes also grammaticalised particles, such as the Finnish

evidential particle kuulemma17:

(19) Flunssat ja kurkkukivut ovat kuulemma colds and sore.throats are it.is.heard kaikonneet. disappear.PST.PTCP ‘Colds and sore throats have apparently disappered.’18

Aikhenvald (2004: 10) sees some particles as a lexical means of

expressing information source, and therefore they would not be included in

grammatical evidentiality. As an example of such particles Aikhenvald gives the

Russian particles jakoby ‘as if, supposedly’, mol ‘he says, they say’ and deskat’

‘(someone) says’, all indicating hearsay. On the other hand, particles are included

in her list of means of expressing evidentials, in addition to affixes, clitics and

special verb forms (ibid: 67). Perhaps this seeming discrepancy can be explained

by the fact that Aikhenvald sees various lexical means of expressing information

source as having different statuses. Also the fact that the actual encoding of

information source and the means used to express it in any language seem to be

rather language-specific may explain the different levels of categorisation of

particles.

17 VISK (see § 1493) apparently understands kuulemma as a lexical expression of information source. 18 The example is from The Language Bank (Corpus.csc.fi) through the corpus tool WWW-Lemmie 2.0. The original text appeared in the newspaper Demari in 1999. The example was accessed 25 May 2009.

22

Johanson (1998: 45) includes in his discussion of indirectivity in Turkic

languages also “copula particles” of the type imiš, ÷ken, which, he says, combine

with nominal stems. In my discussion of evidentiality I regard particles as possible

grammatical means for expressing evidentiality.

4.2.1. ikän – ASSUMED evidential

Tatar has a similar particle to the Turkic ÷ken: ikän.19 This particle can combine

with nominal stems, in which case it functions as a copula. It can also follow finite

verb forms. Ikän has a wide range of funtions which is reflected in the variety of

definitions it gets in Tatar dictionaries: the Explanatory Dictionary (AS I) from

1977 considers ikän, when it is part of the predicate, as bringing a nuance of

confirmation or clarification to the statement, whereas The Tatar-Russian

Dictionary (TR) from 1966 does not mention this function, but centres around the

NON-FIRSTHAND expression of the particle. The Tatar Grammar (1993: 305)

translates ikän as ‘it seems/it turns out (that)’. Zakiev (1992: 191) states that when

occurring with past tense verbs, it strengthens the meaning of NON-WITNESSED

action.

The meaning of the Tatar ikän comes fairly close to Aikhenvald’s (2004:

391) definition of the ASSUMED20

evidential: “information source based on

conclusions drawn on the basis of logical conclusion and general knowledge and

experience”, and that term is used for it in this paper. However, for the Tatar

particle, what seems to be central in the semantics of the word is indirectness and

conclusion. So perhaps a better term for the Tatar ikän would be ‘evidential with

indirect conclusion21’. The following is an example of ikän used together with a

past tense verb.

19 Tatar also has a particle imeš, but it remains outside our discussion due to its more limited use and different function when compared with, first, the Tatar ikän and, second, with the use of the equivalent particle in other Turkic languages. See TG 1993: 300, 303 about the Tatar imeš. 20 Cf Gray (2007: 2, footnote 4), who comments on assumed evidential in Turkmen that a more accurate term for it would be ‘non-reported indirect’. 21 Johanson (2000: 77) also gives ‘conclusion’ as one of the possible interpretations of the Turkic erken (÷ken ).

23

(20) Tömändä jalanbaš jörüče saqal-myeq Tjumen bare.head those.going beard.moustache basqan bu jegetlär... jeraq Urengojdan uq cover.PSTPTC this young.men far.away from.Urengoj INTNS qajt-qan-nar ikän. return-GAn(ASP/NW)-PL ASSM ‘It turns out that these fully bearded young men who walk around Tjumen bareheaded have come from the distant Urengoj.’ (Example from M Waliev; TG 1993: 111).

The -GAn form of the verb could in this context of non-witnessed action carry

both the aspectual resultative and the non-witnessed meaning. Let us compare it

with an example without the particle ikän:

(21) Tömändä jalanbaš jörüče saqal-myeq Tjumen bare.head those.going beard.moustache basqan bu jegetlär... jeraq Urengojdan uq cover.PSTPTC this young.men far.away from.Urengoj INTNS qajt-qan-nar. return-GAn(ASP/NW)-PL ‘These fully bearded young men who walk around Tjumen bareheaded have come from the distant Urengoj.’

When comparing examples (20) and (21), a native speaker commented that

ikän has various possibilities of understanding: 1. the information has come via

more people than when no ikän is used, that is, the original source is more distant;

2. ikän can also suggest that the speaker is not certain of the truthfulness of the

statement; and 3. with ikän, there may be a hint of surprise22. (Mugtasimova, p.c.)

22 See Aikhenvald’s (2004: 209-215) discussion on mirativity, which is “a grammatical category whose primary meaning is speaker’s unprepared mind, unexpected new information, and concomitant surprise”.

24

4.2.2. di – REPORTED evidential

Tatar has a certain verb used in various discourse functions: di- ‘say’. Some of its

non-finite forms are used with fixed meanings without an explicit lexical meaning

of ‘saying’. For example, the converb form dip of di- has developed into a

discourse marker used with direct and non-direct speech. (See section 4.2.3.) The

present tense third person singular form di (and the plural form dilär) is used in

various functions. In some contexts it has kept its lexical meaning, and expresses

information source lexically with the meaning ‘they say; it is said’ (see example

26 on pages 17-18). I suggest that di has also developed another function – that of

a REPORTED evidential. In this function it behaves like a particle. Let us go back to

example 18, which is reproduced here.

(22 =18) Boryn zamanda ber äbi belän ancient in.time a grandmother with babaj bulgan, di. Bolarnyŋ grandfather be-GAn(NW) say.PR.3 of.these tuγan ber balalary ülä having.been.born all.of their.children die bar-γan, di. Šunnan ber waqyt ITR-GAn(NW) say.PR.3 from.then one time äbi ber qyz kiter-gän. grandmother a girl bring.forth-GAn(NW) Isemen Zöhrä dip quš-qan-nar. her.name.ACC Zöhrä QUOT call-GAn-3PL ‘Once upon a time there was an old woman with an old man, it is told. They had one child after another born to them who all died, it is told. Then one day the old woman gave birth to a girl. They called her Zöhrä.’ (TG 1993: 112, example taken from Äkijätlär [Fairytales], 1 kitap.)

The particle di ‘it is told’ is used in the first two sentences of this folk tale

as a cue that the events were not witnessed by the story-teller. However, this does

not by itself suggest that the story is fictitious, since di is also widely used in

25

spoken language, without any nuance of fictiveness (Mugtasimova, p.c.).

Therefore, di receives a fictive interpretation only if supported by the context, and

other features pertaining to a fictive genre. In conversation di would simply signal

reported speech, hearsay.

Such a particle would not usually occur in an account of history. The

following example is taken from a historical account of ancient Turkic peoples. In

the first paragraph the author has given background to the ensuing description on

ancient Turkic peoples using present tense forms of verbs. He starts the

description proper in the second paragraph, and uses -GAn forms:

(23) Xalyqlarnyŋ Böjek küčeše antik of.peoples Great migration.3POSS of.antiquity dön’jadaγy qolbiläüčelek strojen being.in.the.world slave.ownership structure.3POSS.ACC juqqa_čyγar-γan. destroy-GAn ‘The Great Migration of peoples destroyed the slave ownership structure of the world of antiquity.’ (Fäxretdinov 1996: 24.)

The occurrence of di would contradict the objective, formal style of history

writing, and would decrease the credibility of the historical narrative.

4.2.3. dip – QUOTATIVE evidential

Aikhenvald (2004: 394) defines a QUOTATIVE evidential as “[a] verbal form or

particle introducing a verbatim quotation of what someone else has said”. In Tatar

the converb form dip of the verb ‘say’ di- has become grammaticalised to signal

direct and non-direct speech. Thus it is used as a QUOTATIVE.

In the Tatar syntax dip has a variety of functions. In direct speech, dip is

an obligatory element of the speech orienter23, if it follows the quotation. Dip

functions as a connector of the speech orienter and the direct quote (Zakiev 1992:

23 Dooley and Levinsohn (2001: 97) define speech orienter as “an expression which indicates who is speaking to whom”.

26

475). As to indirect speech, Tatar has two different ways of expressing it: a

synthetic way, and an analytical way. In the latter, the form of the ‘original’

speech is retained fairly closely. In such cases, the particle dip functions as a

connector between indirect speech and the main clause. The following examples

show the difference between direct speech and analytical indirect speech:

(24) – Ul kičä šähärgä kilgän, – dip söjlädelär. 3SG yesterday to.town came QUOT told.3PL ‘It was told, “She/He came to town yesterday.”’ (25) Any kičä šähärgä kilgän dip söjlädelär. 3SG.ACC yesterday to.town came QUOT told.3PL ‘It was told, she/he came to town yesterday.’ (Ibid.: 484.)

The direct speech is retained in example (25) almost word-for-word; the

only difference being in the change of the subject in the original quotation into an

object in indirect speech.

5. Tatar on Aikhenvald’s scaling

In Aikhenvald’s theory about a fully-fledged evidentiality strategy vs.

evidentiality system, Tatar is mixed: in the area of verbs it has a strategy, whereas

the particles di and dip are evidentials proper. As far as ikän is concerned, it seems

to be on a borderline between the two, in that its functions range from modal to

evidential. With verbs and ikän, Tatar uses non-evidential categories of

tense/aspect and modality to refer to information sources.

Tatar evidentiality does not fit neatly in Aikhenvald’s system of semantic

parameters. If we consider the Tatar categorical past form -DY as typically

expressing direct experience (see Section 4.1.4.), the Tatar verb affixes fit under

Aikhenvald’s two-choice type A1: “NON-FIRSTHAND vs. FIRSTHAND. However,

since the NON-FIRSTHAND -GAn can also be used in 1st person, a more appropriate

description for Tatar is “INDIRECT vs. DIRECT”, which I will call the type A1T.

27

If particles are also included in the discussion, Tatar fits in Aikhenvald’s

system under the type C3 (DIRECT, INFERRED, REPORTED, QUOTATIVE; see TABLE

2). However, it differs from C3 in that it makes a difference between INFERRED

and ASSUMED. This type C3T actually consists of five rather than four choices.

TABLE 2. Evidentiality in Tatar: Semantic parameters and encoding of evidentials. Option 1 (based more closely on Aikhenvald 2004: 65).

4 choices C1 visual non-visual inferred reported

C2 direct inferred assumed reported

C3 direct inferred reported quotative

(5) C3T

direct

-DY – verb affix

inferred

-GAn – verb

affix

assumed

ikän – particle

also together

with -GAn –

when referring

to past tense

reported

-GAn

di –

particle

quotative

dip – particle

5 choices D1 visual non-visual inferred assumed reported

Displaying Tatar evidentiality in this way is slightly difficult, since the

verb affix -GAn occurs in different columns, although its basic meaning is defined

as INDIRECT. The meanings INFERRED, ASSUMED and REPORTED are contextual.

TABLE 3 (below) shows a modified version of Tatar evidentiality, which gives a

clearer impression of how the different evidentials fit together.

TABLE 3. Evidentiality of Tatar: semantic parameters and grammatical encoding of evidentials. Option 2 (based more loosely on Aikhenvald 2004: 65).

indirect

-GAn – verb affix

direct

-DY – verb affix

inferred

-GAn – verb affix

(contextual)

assumed

ikän – particle

Also together

with -GAn (when

ref. to past tense)

reported =

hearsay

-GAn (contextual)

di – particle

quotative

dip – particle

28

TABLE 3 shows a main division between the basic evidential meanings into

DIRECT (expressed by the verb affix -DY) and INDIRECT. INDIRECT is then further

divided into INFERRED, ASSUMED, REPORTED, and QUOTATIVE meanings. The form

-GAn can express the basic evidential meaning of INDIRECT, and it can also convey

INFERRED, ASSUMED and REPORTED meanings. It is not involved in the expression

of QUOTATIVE evidential.

5.1. Examples of Tatar evidentiality

Evidentiality of the Tatar language is presented below in summary form with the

help of examples taken from a short story Aq et (‘White Dog’) by Rqail Zäjdulla

(1998). The story conveniently shows most of the usages of -GAn, and also has

examples of ASSUMED and QUOTATIVE evidentials. In some cases I give some

more context in the form of free translation to make the connections more

understandable. The story is narrated in first person by a narrator who lives in the

same village as the main characters of the story. The first three examples mainly

show the usage of -GAn, whereas the last example is about its counterpart past

tense form -DY.

(24) Uram qapqasynnan berär jat mašina jaisä street from.its.gate some unknown car or žilkäsenä qapčyq asqan žäjäüle onto. 3SG.POSS.shoulder sack having.hung person.by.foot küren-de-me, šiklänmägez, ul Žantaj äbine appear-DY.PST.3.-Q do.not.doubt.2PL 3SG Žantaj grandma.ACC ezläp kil-gän. Min inde üzem andyj searching come-GAn(RES).PST.3 I already myself such julčylarγa ničä tapqyr jul kürsät-te-m... to.travellers how.many time way show-DY.PST-1SG ‘If you happen to see some unknown car, or a person by foot with a sack hanging on her/his back, do not have any doubt that s/he has come to look for grandma Žantaj. How many times have I myself shown the way to such travellers...’

29

In example (24), the affix -GAn in ezläp kilgän ‘came searching’ is

aspectually resultative, and it may also express a NON-WITNESSED (NON-

FIRSTHAND) event. Contextually the affix also gets a meaning INFERRED. As to the

-DY form in kürsättem ‘I showed’, since the narrator speaks from first person, it is

clear that this is a witnessed situation, and the information is FIRSTHAND.

(25) Ä Xažätneŋ öjen tanuy žiŋel – but Xažät.GEN house.POSS.3.ACC recognising.POSS.3 easy qyjeγynda jazyn da, közen on.top.of.its.roof spring. POSS.3.ACC also autumn. POSS.3.ACC dä qyzyl bajraq elenep tora. Qyzyllyγy inde also red flag hanging CONT.PRES3 redness.POSS.3 already anyŋ tašqa ülčim, žildä ašalyp, tösen its could.be.better in. wind hanging its.colour anyqlawy da qyjenlaša clearness.POSS.3 also become.hard.PRES3 töš-kän... PRTL.COMPL-GAn(RES).PST3 ‘But it is easy to recognise Xažät’s house – on top of its roof there hangs a flag all spring, all autumn. Its redness could be better, hanging in the wind the brightness of its colour has become less.’

In example (25) the affix -GAn in qyjenlaša töškän ‘has become hard’ has only

the aspectual meaning of resultative. The story continues:

‘Honestly speaking, I haven’t seen Grandma Žantaj. Which of our people have in actual fact seen her?’ (26) Berničä jel elek awyl bašlyγy Rauil Galyč a.few year before village leader.POSS Rauil Galyč kür-gän, dilär. see-GAn(NW)PST3 say.3PL

30

‘It is said that a few years ago the village leader Rauil Galyč saw [her]. For a long time he had been strongly concerned about the only house [in the village] with a thatched roof.’ Menä šul berkönne šaqy-γan Žantaj So thus one.day knock-GAn(NW).PST3 Žantaj kämperneŋ išegen. Busaγadan ütep ?24.GEN door.POSS.3.ACC from.the.threshold going.through jomyšyn äjtergä dä ölgermä-gän, his.business.ACC to.say even not.have.time-GAn(NW).PST3 qortqa süzne üze bašla-γan... old.woman word.ACC herself begin-GAN(NW).PST3 ‘And so one day [he] knocked on Žantaj’s door. Having crossed the threshold, [he] did not even have time to mention his business, when the old woman herself started speaking.’

In example (26) the affix -GAn in all the four verbs kürgän ‘saw’, šaqygan

‘knocked’, ölgermägän ‘did not have time’, and bašlaγan ‘started’ express NON-

FIRSTHAND information. In the context it also shows a meaning of REPORTED

information, which is strengthened by the lexical verbal expression dilär ‘it is

said’.

(27) Ä besneŋ awyl xalqy “käžünni jortny” but our village people.POSS “government_house”.POSS.3 bötenläj bütänčä aŋla-dy. Bütänčä altogether differently understand-DY.PST3 Otherwise aŋlap, boryn astynnan zähär understanding nose from.underneath. POSS.3 poison(ous) jelmajep jörüčelär dä tabyl-dy. Alγaraq smiling CONT.doers also be.found-DY.PST3 forwards kitep bulsa da, šunysyn äjtergä kiräk: going although.there.is.a.need this.POSS.3.ACC to.say must ike jaq ta xaqly bulyp čyq-ty biredä. two side INTENS correct being COMPL-DY.PST3 here

24 Possibly a mythological character. (Mugtasimova p.c.)

31

Bašta Rauil Galyč rajondaγy zur eškä First Rauil Galyč being.in.the.region big to.job küč-te, berazdan any xalyq “käžünni jort” move-DY.PST3 after.a.while him people “government_house” dip aŋlaγan töškä küčer-de-lär. QUOT.PTCL which.understood to.place be.moved-DY.PST3-PL ‘But people in our village understood “government house” in a totally different way. Since they understood it differently, there were also people who looked down their nose and kept smiling scornfully. Even though [we] need to go forwards [in our story?], the following needs to be said: both sides turned out to be correct in this case. At first Rauil Galyč moved to a big job on a regional level, and after a short while he was moved to a place which people understand as “government house”.’

Example (27) shows some of the great variety of meanings that -DY can

have: the speaker has personal involvement in aŋlady ‘understood’, tabyldy ‘was

found’; he has at least heard firsthand how people have been speaking about ‘the

government house’ and has witnessed the existence of mockers. In the case of

bulyp čyqty ‘turned out to be’ the narrator expresses his personal conclusion. In

the last two, küčte ‘moved’ and küčerdelär ‘was moved’, -DY form seems to be

used in its narrative function. Even though the speaker is unlikely to have

witnessed the exact event, he can use the -DY form, because he has no need to

accentuate any such evidential meaning where the form -GAn would be used. In

addition, the speaker is personally involved in the events which he is narrating and

this allows him to use the -DY form: thus he corroborates the fact he is stating.

(See Section 1.5.) Also, if comparing these verbs and their context with the verbs

in (26), here the events do seem more generally well-known, whereas in (26) the

narrator is clearly relying on (potentially unreliable) hearsay.

6. Conclusion

Evidentiality is grammatical expression of information source. It occurs in about a

quarter of the languages of the world – Tatar being one of them. In these

32

languages, in most cases the expression of evidentiality cannot be left out, or else

the resulting utterance would be ungrammatical and unnatural.

For Tatar – as for many other Turkic languages – evidentiality is an

integral part of grammar, but it does not form a coherent system in the language.

Evidentiality can be seen as a continuum with a fully-fledged evidentiality system

where evidentiality forms an obligatory inflectional system and where information

source is the core meaning at one end, and with an evidentiality strategy which

does not form a coherent category, and evidential meanings are expressed using

different grammatical mechanisms at the other. On this continuum, Tatar is a

mixed case. As far as the verb affixes -GAn and -DY, and the particle ikän are

concerned, Tatar has an evidentiality strategy, since these do not have information

source as their primary meaning. Instead, other grammatical categories have

developed secondary meanings of evidentiality. For -GAn tense/aspect has

developed an evidential extension INDIRECT, and for ikän modality has developed

into ASSUMED evidential. Tatar has at least two other particles with evidential

meanings: di, expressing REPORTED information, and dip, used as a QUOTATIVE

evidential in the context of direct and indirect speech. These particles are

evidentials proper, since their primary meaning is information source.

As far as verb affixes are concerned, evidentiality is mainly expressed in

past tense. In Tatar this is especially well seen in the opposition between the verb

affix -DY, generally accentuating the actual happening of the event, and affix -

GAn, which emphasises the result of the event, with relevance to the moment of

speaking. An INFERRED evidential can occur in first person, then producing an

additional nuance of something that the speaker did inadvertently, or cannot

remember.

In Tatar evidentiality has an important connection with discourse.

Particular evidentials are preferred depending on discourse genre. The -GAn and -

DY affixes expressing evidentiality can be seen as – what Aikhenvald calls –

‘tokens’ of certain genres: -GAn is used in genres depicting distant past events, be

it in the form of fictive folk tales, or in the form of non-fictive historical accounts,

whereas -DY is a token of ‘realistic’ fiction, like novels, and short stories.

33

According to Aikhenvald evidentiality is purely to do with the ways in

which information is acquired – whether by seeing, hearing, inferring, or in some

other way. It is not connected with the speaker’s expressed position as to the

reliability of the information. However, evidentials may acquire secondary

meanings to do with the reliability of information, or its probability and

possibility. Then evidentiality overlaps with modality. The reverse can also

happen: non-evidential categories acquire secondary meanings that are typical of

evidentials. This is what has happened with the Tatar verb affixes: the aspectually

resultative past tense affix -GAn has developed an evidential meaning INDIRECT,

and the other past tense affix -DY is mainly used for events of FIRSTHAND,

WITNESSED experience.

When considering the modal meaning of reliability, and its connection

with discourse and genres, narratives set in distant past are useful in showing the

importance of context in determining the meaning of verb affixes used

evidentially. Unlike Turkish which uses different verb affixes for the two

narrative (sub)genres of historical account and folktale – -DI the equivalent of -

DY – and -mIş – the equivalent of -GAn – respectively – Tatar uses -GAn for both.

And still the Tatar hearer/reader does not regard folk tales as equally realiable as

historical accounts. This is because the context gives cues concerning the nature

of the narrative. It is not the verb affix -GAn itself which carries the modal

meaning to do with reliability and truthfulness, but it is the surrounding context,

including any lexical cues, that gives this modal nuance to the discourse.

Context plays a major role also in the actual interpretation of the Tatar

evidentials expressed with verb affixes. In context, -GAn can be interpreted as

meaning INFERRED, ASSUMED (this meaning strengthened by the particle ikän) or

REPORTED information (with or without the particle di), each of which meanings

can be strengthened with various lexical expressions. The affix -DY can in a

context acquire a modal meaning of ‘reliable information’.

The Tatar particle ikän carries the evidential meaning of ‘it seems/it turns

out (that)’. It is in the borderline between an evidential and a modal. I have

labelled ikän as an ASSUMED evidential, following Aikhenvald. However, this

particle appears to combine two semantic components of indirectness and

34

conclusion, so the term ‘evidential with indirect conclusion’ represents ikän more

accurately.

The Tatar present tense form di ‘say.3SG’ of the verb di- ‘say’ has acquired

particle-like functions. In context it can function as a REPORTED evidential,

indicating that the information conveyed is hearsay. It is used especially in

folktales and fairy stories, but is also common in colloquial language and

conversation.

The non-finite converb form of di- ‘say’ is dip ‘saying’. In addition to its

lexical meaning, it has also developed a function signalling direct and non-direct

speech. Thus it is used as a QUOTATIVE evidential.

Since Tatar has non-heterogeneous evidentiality, it does not fit neatly into

Aikhenvald’s categorisation of evidentiality systems. Of the four types established

by Aikhenvald, Tatar verb affixes fit best under the type A1. However, instead of

Aikhenvald’s definition of A1 as ‘NON-FIRSTHAND vs. FIRSTHAND’, for Tatar a

more appropriate label is ‘INDIRECT vs. DIRECT’, and I call this type A1T. In

choosing the term INDIRECT I follow Johanson who calls Turkic non-firsthand

evidentials indirectives. This term emphasises the fact that what is central in the

evidential meaning of -GAn is not how the information was acquired but that the

event was stated indirectly.

As the three particles used as evidentials – ikän, di, and dip – are

recognised as an integral part of Tatar evidentiality together with the verb affixes,

Tatar fits in Aikhenvald’s system under the type C3. However, it differs from C3

in that it makes a difference between INFERRED and ASSUMED. When Aikhenvald’s

display of type C3 is slightly modified to fit the Tatar situation better, we get an

evidentiality type C3T. It divides the structure of Tatar evidentiality into three

basic evidentials: DIRECT (encoded by -DY), INDIRECT, and QUOTATIVE (encoded

by dip). INDIRECT is further divided into INFERRED (encoded by -GAn), ASSUMED

(encoded by ikän, and optionally by -GAn), and REPORTED (encoded by -GAn, and

di).

One of the findings of my study of Tatar evidentiality was the fact that

hardly any of the forms discussed have a single clear-cut function, which is an

indication of the creativity and flexibility of language. Some of the forms used as

35

evidentials have a basic non-evidential function which has developed evidential

extensions; some are at the borderline of different categories, and receive a wide

variety of interpretations. The key component in determining the evidentiality

status of a form and interpreting it has turned out to be the context: language

needs to be studied in context. From the point of view of discourse it would be

useful to look further into the concept of perspective and how the changes in it

affect the way in which evidentiality is expressed.

References

AIKHENVALD, ALEXANDRA 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. AKSU-KOÇ, AYHAN A. & DAN I. SLOBIN 1986. A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish. In: Chafe & Nichols 1986, 159-167. AS = Tatar teleneŋ aŋlatmaly süzlege I 1977 [An Explanatory Dictionary of Tatar]. Kazan:

Tatarstan kitap näšrijaty. BLASS, REGINA 1990. Relevance relations in discourse. A study with special reference to

Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CHAFE, WALLACE & JOHANNA NICHOLS (eds) 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding

of Epistemology. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation COMRIE, BERNARD 2000. Evidentials: semantics and history. In: Johanson & Utas 2000, 1-12. CRYSTAL, DAVID 2003, 2007. A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics. Fifth Edition. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing. DOOLEY, ROBERT A. & STEPHEN H. LEVINSOHN 2001. Analyzing Discourse. A Manual of

Basic Concepts. Dallas: SIL International. DUFVA HANNELE & MIKA LÄHTEENMÄKI 2002. Kielentutkimuksen klassikoita. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto. FÄXRETDINOV, R. G. 1996. Tatar xalqy häm Tatarstan taryxy [The Tatar people and the history

of Tatarstan]. Kazan: “Mäγarif” näšrijaty. GRAY, DAVID 2007. Evidentiality in Turkmen. Unpublished manuscript. JOHANSON, LARS 1998. The structure of Turkic. In: Johanson & Csató 1998, 30-66. JOHANSON, LARS 2000. Turkic indirectives. In: Johanson & Utas 2000, 61-88. JOHANSON, LARS & BO UTAS, (eds) 2000. Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring

Languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. JOHANSON, LARS & ÉVA ÁGNES CSATÓ (eds) 1998. The Turkic languages. London and

New York: Routledge.

36

JUSUPOV, F. JU. 1986. Izučenie tatarskogo glagola [A study of the Tatar verb]. Kazan: Tatarskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.

JUSUPOV, RÜZÄL 2008. Täržemä häm söjläm kul’turasy [Translation and culture of speech].

Kazan: Tatarstan kitap näšrijaty. LÄHTEENMÄKI, MIKA 2002. Dialoginen näkökulma kieleen: Mihail Bahtin ja Valentin Vološinov. In: Dufva & Lähteenmäki, 179-200. MUGTASIMOVA, G. R. March 2009. Personal communication with Teija Greed. Kazan. PALMER, FRANK 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TG = Tatarskaja grammatika, tom II, Morfologija 1993 [Tatar Grammar II, Morphology]. Kazan:

Tatarskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo. TR = Tatarsko-russkij slovar’ 1966 [Tatar-Russian Dictionary]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Sovetskaja

enciklopedija”. VAN VALIN, ROBERT D., Jr & RANDY J. LaPOLLA 1997. Syntax. Structure, meaning and

function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VISK = HAKULINEN, AULI, MARIA VILKUNA, RIITTA KORHON EN, VESA KOIVISTO,

TARJA RIITTA HEINONEN & IRJA ALHO 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Web version, accessed 25 May 2009. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk URN:ISBN:978-952-5446-35-7.

WÄLIEVA, GÖLČÄČÄK 2007. Ilfaq belän Ilsöjä jat awyldan jort aldylar [Ilfaq and Ilsöjä bought a house in an unfamiliar village]. In: Qäef niček? 39, 2007, 28 September – 4 October; 4. XUŽIN, MÄ γ’’SUM 2001. Tatar xikäjäse antologijase. Kazan: Tatarstan kitap näšrijaty. ZAKIEV, M. Z. 1992. Tatarskaja grammatika, tom III, Sintaksis [Tatar Grammar III: Syntax].

Kazan: Tatarskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo. ZÄJDULLA, RQAIL 1998. Aq et [White Dog]. In: Xužin 2001, 552-554.

Appendix

Definitions of terms are taken from Aikhenvald’s Glossary of Terms (2004: 391-394). ASSUMED evidential “information source based on conclusions drawn on the basis of logical conclusion and general knowledge and experience”. DIRECT evidential “an evidential which covers speakers’ or participants’ own sensory experience of any kind... Often same as VISUAL EVIDENTIAL .” evidentiality strategy “use of a non-evidential category (such as tense, aspect, or modality) to refer to information source”. FIRSTHAND evidential “an evidential – typically in a small system with two choices – referring to something the speaker has seen, heard, or otherwise experienced. Syn[onyms]: eyewitness and confirmative.”

37

indirective “a term predominantly used in Turkic linguistics for the non-firsthand or the non-eyewitness evidential”. INFERRED evidential “information source based on conclusions drawn on the basis of what one can see, or the result of something happening”. modality “grammatical category covering the degree of certainty of the statement ...; sometimes understood as a kind of speech-act”. mood “grammatical category expressing a speech-act (e.g. statement: indicative mood; question: interrogative mood...), also sometimes defined as a category which ‘characterizes the actuality of the event’ (Chung and Timberlake 1985: 241)”. NON-FIRSTHAND evidential “an evidential, typically in a small system with two choices, referring to something the speaker has not seen, heard, or otherwise experienced, and to something the speaker may have inferred, assumed, or (in some systems) learnt from someone else’s verbal report. ... Syn[onyms]: non-eyewitness, indirective, mediative, and non-confirmative.” QUOTATIVE “...verbal form or a particle introducing a verbatim quotation of what someone else has said”. REPORTED “an evidential whose main meaning is marking what has been learnt form someone else’s verbal report”.

Abbreviations

The abbreviations used mainly follow Leipzig Glossing rules (http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php). 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person ACC accusative ASP aspect(ual) ASSM assumed (evidential) CMPL completed action CONT continuous CVB converb -dI Turkic past tense form 1 -DY Tatar past tense form 1 -GAn Tatar past tense form 2 GEN genitive ITR iterative aspect INFER inferential/inferred INTNS intensifier INTNSF intensifying action -mIş Turkic past tense form 2 NW nonwitnessed (evidential) PL plural POSS possessive

38

PRF perfect PRS present PRT.CMPL partially completed action PRT.DVLP partially developing action PST past PTCL particle PTCP participle Q question marker QUOT quotative (evidential) RES resultative SG singular