|
Decomposing "evidentiality": Kinds vs. Sources of knowledge| old_uid | 11131 |
|---|
| title | Decomposing "evidentiality": Kinds vs. Sources of knowledge |
|---|
| start_date | 2016/03/04 |
|---|
| schedule | 14h-16h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| summary | The grammatical category of egophoricity has been discussed as part of a broad category of evidentiality. A close analysis of the verbal systems in Tibetic, where this phenomenon has been most studied, suggests a different approach. The Egophoric category expresses, not a source, but a type of knowledge. Tibetic languages formally distinguish three types of knowledge, assumed (or generic), personal (expressed by the Egophoric category) and contingent. True evidential distinctions can only be marked on statements of the third category. The same tripartite structure of types of knowledge can be identified in languages without grammaticalized evidentiality, for example in English, where lexical evidentials (It seems, I hear, etc.) and grammaticalized modals can be used with their ordinary meaning only with contingent statements. For example, evidentials or modals used with statements of personal knowledge such as I must have a headache, I hear I live in Paris, while formally “grammatical”, cannot be used or interpreted with the unmarked realis sense. |
|---|
| responsibles | Coupé |
|---|
| |
|