Evidentiality in the Zo language.pdf

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Philip Thanglienmang DN: cn=Dr. Philip Thanglienmang, o=ZOCULSIN, c=IN Date: 2016.11.19 12:54:03 Z Location: New Delhi India A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo language 704 Evidentiality 7.4 Evidentiality Evidentiality can be defined as expressing the ‘source of information’ for a proposition (Aikhenvald, 2003a; De Haan, 1999, 2005a,b). Evidentiality is the indication of the nature of evidence for a given proposition; that is, whether evidence exists for the statement or not. To indicate the truth or non-truth conditions of a proposition is the primary function of evidentiality. 7.4.1 Types of Evidentiality system. The two types of primary evidentialities are; direct and indirect. Direct evidentiality gives an information about an event or action when the speaker himself/herself has witnessed or suffered or seen or heard. Thus, the term witness, firsthand, sensory: visual and auditory become relevant in this type of evidentiality. Whereas, Indirect evidentiality are gives an information about an event or action when the speaker himself/herself has not witnessed or suffered or seen or heard personally or physically, but s/he obtained or heard the information about an event or an action through others (secondhand). An inferential (INF.) evidential indicates information was not personally experienced but was inferred from indirect evidence such as auditory, nonvisual, inferences of informations obtained or heard or inferred indirectly from secondhand source. Reportative evidentials indicate that the information was reported to the speaker by another person belongs to secondhand source, it becomes an inferential evidential. (1) əmà: nə bò:l a ki- cì: hì: s/he INF. do.2 PROA.3S VREF say CONF., EVID. ‘it is told that it was done by him/her’ or it is said that ‘he did it.’s De Haan (1999, 2001, 2005) states that evidentiality asserts evidence while epistemic modality evaluates evidence and that evidentiality is much closer to deictic category indicating the relationship between the speaker and an event or an action. De Haan (2001) finds that the use of modal verbs to indicate evidentiality is comparatively rare based on studies of several languages. Aikhenvald (2003) considers that evidentiality may indicate the speaker's attitude about the validity of a statement. There is no universal agreement on the definitions of these two linguistic categories. Evidentiality is often considered to be a sub-type of epistemic modality by Kiefer (1994) and Palmer (1986). Other linguists such as Aikhenvald (2003), Givon(1982), Chafe & Nichols A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo language 705 Evidentiality (1986), Willet (1988) consider evidentiality or truth conditions to be distinct from epistemic modality or degree of certainty of a proposition. In this analysis for Zo, I am adopting the latter view, because, in Zo we can differentiate the two as shown below: (2) (3) a. əmà: hí péi kə mù: hi: ‘i see him coming’ (evidential) b. əmà: hí péi è: ‘s/he is coming’ (evidential) c. əmà: nə péi hì: ‘s/he went (evidential) d. əmà: və péi hì: ‘s/he went (evidential) e. əmà: və péi hi zu-a: ‘s/he went (evidential) a. əmà: péi vá: 3S, ‘he maybe going’ (epistemic optative mood/modality) b. əmà:té: péi vé:ún 3P, ‘they would be going’ (epistemic modality) c. kéi péi vá:-ì : 1S, ‘i will go’ (epistemic modality) d. ná péi vá: te 2S, ‘you will be going’ (epistemic modality) e. nóuté: péi vá: u te 2P, ‘you will be going’ (epistemic modality) The basic tense-aspect-modality (TAM) system in Zo, is expanded in order to include evidentiality (E), which focuses on the nature and source of information/knowledge giving rise to whether truth or non-truth/evidence exists with respect to the proposition uttered or posited by the speaker. Aikhenvald (2004) states that about a quarter of the world's languages have some type of grammatical evidentiality and she considers evidentiality as a pure grammatical category. Grammatical evidentiality is language-specific, and, it may be expressed in different forms such as through affixes, clitics, or particles or adverbial particles. Although, there is a close connection of evidentiality with other pragmatics features and grammatical categories, Zo seemingly appears to attest evidentiality as a separate and distinct grammatical category. The above examples (2) and (3) are shown to substantiate my hypothesis. A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo language 706 Evidentiality 7.4.2 Evidential marking and other linguistic categories in Zo Zo language appears to have distinct grammatical categories to mark evidentiality. Evidentiality in many languages are often marked simultaneously with other linguistic categories. The term ‘evidential’ will henceforth be used to mean Evidentiality marker (EVID.) in Zo for all practical purposes. According to Aikhenvald (2003) the phenomenon of evidentiality developing secondary functions of other grammatical categories (e.g. confirmative modal auxiliary verb) is fairly widespread. She found that evidentiality marking may co-occur with epistemic modals. A similar condition is also found in Zo, where, evidentiality co-occurs with tense-aspectual-modal system or marking. A given language may use the same element to mark both evidentiality and modality. This is also partially true in the case of Zo, where, the postverbal enclitic hì: or è: both can function as Confirmative modals, at the same time, they can be realized as Direct Evidential markers as well. The term Confirmative Evidential (CONF., EVID.) can be in vogue here. In addition to its close interactions with tense, modality, and aspect, the usage of evidentials in some languages may also depend on the clause type, discourse structure, and/or linguistic type. Some prominent Evidentiality markers or Evidentials found in Zo are; bòu, è:, hi:, hì:, hiè:, hi:hài, hì:hì, himà:, hiná:, mà:, na/ná:, hilòu, hilòupí:, hizu-a, hithuói-a, lòubuo, sà:m, avele, hinapí:, lél, hiòila., etc. The following types of mixed systems are attested in Zo language. i) evidentiality with tense-aspect ii) evidentiality with modality iii) evidentiality with tense-aspect-modality known as TAME system. 7.4.2.1 Simple Evidentials. The simple evidential is portrayed by the Copula/ AUX./postverbal hi: ‘be/is’, which conveying the meaning of an action or an event which is progressing, ongoing state while its allotone hì: ‘CONF. or DEF.’ can be either a confirmative or a definite marker, the other simple evidentials are postverbal evidentials; è:, mà:, nà: or ná:, preverbal evidential nə. The example in the A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo language 707 Evidentiality sentence given below is in Imperfective progressive aspect of Simple continuous tense. Thus, the evidentiality with tense-aspect form is realized here. (4) əmà: in s/he AGEN.water PROA. drink EVID., CONT. túi a do:n VISUAL hi: ‘s/he is drinking water’ (the action of drinking is continuing) In the progressive aspect the evidential donot alternate the verb stem as shown above, whereas when the action or event is in perfective notion then, the stem2 verb is realized in the first instance. (5) Zogam èt -lò:m sà: Zouland see.2 -nice feel ì è: SPVM, S EVID,.CONF. ‘i experienced the beauty of Zouland’ (I felt the beauty of Zouland) (6) Zogam èt VISUAL/CONFIRMATIVE -lò:m mà: Zouland see.2 -nice EVID,.CONF. ‘ Zouland is surely beautiful’ (the beauty of Zouland is undisputed facts) (7) əmà: in s/he AGEN. water drink EVID,. DEF. túi: VISUAL do:n mà: [or ná:] $ ‘s/he drank the water’ (the action is certain) (8) əmà: in s/he AGEN. water PROA. INF./DEF. drink túi: a nə do:n INFERENTIAL $ ‘s/he drank water in some unknown past’ (the action was past/distal) 7.4.2.2 Compound Evidentials. The Compound Evidentialities are obtained in Zo by syntactically positioning the Compound evidentials finally after the Simple evidential. It is observed that when the evidentiality surfaced as a Compound form with various evidentials, in such cases, the verb stem1 is realized as an alternated stem2. This Stem2 verb conveys the notion of past and definite evidentialilty in the proposition or utterance. The Negative markers are syntactically positioned in between the A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo language 708 Evidentiality compound forms. The Compound evidentials are realized by various combinations of the simple Evidentials and formatives or adverbializers. Let us see them one by one: i) It is possible to either combine syntactically or conflate the first evidential (hi:) and the second evidential (è:) into one form it conveys very definiteness state of an action or an event; hiè: the gloss is ‘very definitely’. This evidential can occur in past, present and future time references. (9) əmà: in s/he AGEN.water PROA. INF. drink.2 EVID,.CONF. túi: a nə dò:n $ hiè: ‘s/he was drinking water’ (the action of drinking in past is very definite) (10) əmà: s/he in túi: a dò:n hiè: AGEN.water PROA. drink.2 EVID,.CONF. ‘s/he is drinking water’ (the action of ongoing drinking is very definite) (11) əmà: s/he in túi: a dò:n dí: & hiè: AGEN.water PROA. drink.2 IRR.FUT. EVID,.CONF. ‘s/he will be drinking water’ (the action of drinking in future very definite) ii) When the evidentials è: or hì: or hài or mà: or nà: anyone of them is placed after bòu, hi: or mà: or nà etc., finally or elsewhere, it emphasize or intensifies the proposition or utterance as a compound evidentiality. The example below shows clearly the involvement of tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality (TAME) in Zo. (12) ba:nza:l arm.length. sè:m -kói: ài nə blow.2.-bend. beloved. 2S to -luòn, voice. -flow.2 the bent-finger whistling and your voice,(when I hear) lè:n lai: lə fly.2. DUR. NEG. ài ə bə a 3S like IMPF. beloved it looks like the youthful time, o, beloved, AUDITORY ò: VOC. INFERENTIAL A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo language 709 Evidentiality lè:n lai: lòu fly.2. DUR. NEG. buo tul kuòn è: dòn dà: tà: ò: EVID. age EVM. CONF. care. NEG. PERF. PREC. though, it is not as such the youthful time, please do not bother, we are aged now ài na bòu hurt EVID. CONF.beloved. VOC. è:, ò: DIRECT it really hurts me, o beloved. (13) Zogam èt -lò:m mà: VISUAL è: Zouland see.2 -nice EVID,.CONF. ‘ Zouland is surely beautiful’ (the beauty of Zouland is undisputed facts) (14) u: ò: kho:l ta elder VOC. stop dì: vè:n mu bà a ká’ ài VISUAL PERF. PREC. OPT. see. like CL. PnPVM love. ‘oh, elder please stop for a while, i love you dearly’ iii) Reduplicating the Confirmative evidential/Copula hì: or mà: ‘Certainty evidential’ intensifies the propostion as shown below:(15) əmà: s/he in túi: a dò:n a hì:hì VISUAL AGEN. water PROA. drink.2 PROA. be/is.2, REDUP.EVID,.CONF. ‘s/he is drinking water’ (the action of drinking is definitely progressing) (16) əma: mà:mà: mò: -na: a hì: INFERENTIAL his/her EVID. sin.2. NOMZ. PROA. EVID., CONF. ‘it is her/his own fault/mistake’ ama: (17) ə his/her me:l hòi appearance good. EVID., INTSF. her/his face is very beautiful’ mà:mà: VISUAL A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo language 710 Evidentiality iv) The Copula/Confirmative hi: combines with the formatives such as hài, mà:, zu-a etc., in different forms to give Compound evidentials such as hi:hài, himà:, hiná:, hithuói-a, the English gloss would be roughly ‘indeed’ or ‘surely’. The compound evidential hihài ‘surely are’ conveys indicative modality in plural sense. The speaker has deduced or concluded or inferred the truth of his/her proposition from his/her elders reportage or oral tradition handed down to him/her. (18) Pu Zo hlá: progenitor Zou offspring le suòn INFERENTIAL hi:hài CONJ. progeny ‘is’ FORM. EVID,.CONF. ‘we are surely the offsprings of ancestor Zo’ (it is certain from genealogy) The compound evidential himà: conveys confirmative evidentiality. (19) əmà: s/he in túi a dò:n himà:[or hiná:] AGEN. water PROA. drink.2 ‘is’ EVID,.CONF. ‘s/he is surely drinking water’ (the action of drinking is definite) The compound evidential hizu-a conveys a very confirmative evidentiality. (20) əmà: s/he in túi: a dò:n zu-a [or thuói-a] $ hi AGEN.water PROA. drink.2 EVID,.CONF. EVID., DEF. ‘s/he drank the water’ (the action of drinking very definite) (21) əmà: s/he –in tà:ŋthu khət AGEN. tale one ə ŋai: $ hizu-a PROA listen EVID. ‘s/he definitely listens to a tale’ Sometimes, the habitual mood combines with evidentiality aspect to give direct evidentiality. (22) əmà: s/he –in tà:ŋthu khət AGEN. tale one ə ŋai: let hizu-a $ PROA listen HAB. EVID. ‘s/he definitely used to listen to a tale’ The compound evidential na +V + hì: conveys a past definite evidentiality. (23) əmà: s/he in túi: a nə do:n hì: AGEN.water PROA. INF. drink EVID., DEF. $ A Descriptive Grammar of the Zo language 711 Evidentiality ‘s/he was drinking water’ (the action was going definitely) The compound evidential na +V + ahì: conveys a short past very definite evidentiality or definite inferential evidentiality (INF.). (24) əmà: s/he in túi: a na dò:n a $ hì: AGEN.water PROA. INF. drink.2 PROA.EVID., CONF. ‘s/he was drinking water a moment ago’ (the action was going on in a short past very definitely) v) Negative Evidentials The compound evidential hilóu-pí: conveys a short past very definite negative evidentiality. (25) tám this túi: amà: dò:n water s/he hi: lóu pí: drink.2 EVID., NEG. DEF. ‘this water is not drunk by him/her at all’ or ‘surely, it is not him/her that drank the water’ The formative suffix -pí:is used with negative marker lòu to emphasize the proposition in the above sentence, it cannot co-occur with the si negative marker. When the negative marker si is employed after the evidential hi: , then the evidential è: is used in place pí: (26) tám this túi: amà: in water s/he a dò:n hi: AGEN. PROA. drink.2 si è: EVID., NEG. DEF. ‘this water is not drunk by him/her at all’ or ‘surely, it is not him/her that drank the water’ The negative is placed before the evidential to convey a short past very definite evidentiality. (27) əmà: s/he in túi: dò:n lòu $ hì: AGEN.water drink NEG. EVID., DEF. ‘s/he did not drink water’ (the action in a short past definite) The compound negative evidential na + V + lòu ahì: conveys a short past very definite negative evidentiality. (28) əmà: s/he in túi: a nə dò:n lòu a hì: $ AGEN.water PROA. INF. drink.2 NEG. PROA.EVID., DEF. ‘s/he was not drinking water a moment ago’