Evidentials as Generalized Functional Heads

This paper proposes that grammaticized evidential morphemes do not simply encode evidence type (as it has been stipulated so far); rather, they encode relations among three situations: the situation of which a proposition is true, a Reference Situation and the Discourse Situation. Evidentials encode the same relations as do Tense and Aspect morphemes, but they relate situations rather than times. Thus, “evidence” is not a primitive but a relation between the situation S about which one makes an assertion and a situation that either contains or is accessible to S. The restrictions on evidence type are predicted by the fact that containment and accessibility are the only possible relations. The common homophony between Evidential morphemes and Tense/Aspect morphemes is explained because the systems encode the same relations. These parallels motivate the suggestion that all Functional heads encode basically the same relations, which may be seen as fundamentally configurational.

[1]  Martina Faller Remarks on evidential hierarchies , 2002 .

[2]  Kyung-Sook Chung,et al.  Space in Tense: The interaction of tense, aspect, evidentiality and speech acts in Korean , 2012 .

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002, Science.

[4]  S. Iatridou The past, the possible and the evident , 1990 .

[5]  K. Fintel,et al.  'Might' Made Right , 2011 .

[6]  Matthew Harley Tense, aspect and mood in Tuwuli , 2008 .

[7]  Vladimir A. Plungian,et al.  The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space , 2001 .

[8]  K. Hengeveld Mood and modality , 2004 .

[9]  J. Rooryck Evidentiality, Part II , 2001 .

[10]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean , 1977 .

[11]  M. Speas Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features , 2004 .

[12]  Hamida Demirdache,et al.  The primitives of temporal relations , 2000 .

[13]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  J. Bregetzer [The liar]. , 1989, Revue de l'infirmiere.

[15]  Thomas L. Willett A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality , 1988 .

[16]  The Place of Inference within the Evidential System , 2001 .

[17]  K. Jon Barwise,et al.  The situation in logic , 1989, CSLI lecture notes series.

[18]  B. J. Meira Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective , 2011 .

[19]  Ken Hale,et al.  THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURE , 1998 .

[20]  Elizabeth A. Cowper The Geometry of Interpretable Features: Infl in English and Spanish , 2005 .

[21]  Martina Faller Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua , 2002 .

[22]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Learning the structure of event sequences. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[23]  Mario Squartini,et al.  The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance , 2001 .

[24]  N. Cocchiarella,et al.  Situations and Attitudes. , 1986 .

[25]  Halldor Armann Sigurðsson,et al.  The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features , 2004 .

[26]  Irina Nikolaeva,et al.  The semantics of Northern Khanty Evidentials , 1999 .

[27]  Martina Faller,et al.  The Deictic Core of 'Non‐Experienced Past' in Cuzco Quechua , 2004, J. Semant..

[28]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World , 1994 .