the nature of evidentiality. leiden, june 14th. 2012 1 contact

The Nature of Evidentiality. Leiden, June 14th. 2012

1

Contact induced categories.

A case study of evidentiality in Kakua (ISO code: cbv)

Department of Linguistics

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

[email protected]

I. INTRODUCTION

Goal of this presentationː

o Show evidentiality system in Kakua – two stages of the system

o Show a case study of how an evidentiality system can evolve within a given language through

areal contact

Amazonia region

o high diversity of unrelated languages sharing strikingly similar features

o Diffusion of features across language boundaries - Amazonia encompass [at least one]

linguistic area (c.f. Epps 2005, Aikhenvald 2002)

a p s re ion as a lin isti area:

o Home to languages of 4 distinct (apparently unrelated) linguistic families (Aikhenvald &

Dixon 1999): Eastern Tukanoan, Arawak, Nadahup (Epps 2008), Kakua-Nukak (Bolanos &

Epps 2009).

o Forest-dweller vs. riverine groups. Linguistic exogamy (c.f. Sorensen 1967, Jackson 1983,

Epps 2005, 2008; etc)

o Diffusion of many structural features through intense contact (c.f. Aikhenvald & Dixon

1998).

o v d y ‘d g c’ f f g c - c y f v d

y g g f v d c f c

languages d f g c f. Epps 2005, Aikhenvald & Dixon 1998).

Kakua language and contact scenario

o ~ < 230 speakers

o Kakua-Nukak family (Bolanos & Epps 2009)

o Forest-dweller/ seminomadic orientation (as opposed to ET groups and Arawak Tariana)

o No engagement in linguistic exogamy (rather have clan exogamy)

o Socioeconomic relationships with riverine neighboring groups.

o N f ‘ q ’ Forest-dwellers are rather viewed as socially inferior by their

neighboring groups

o One-way bilingualism

o Intense historical contact documented in the 70's (Silverwood-Cope, 1972)

o Currently more limited contact (not all speakers)

o c c y d g f f

mailto:[email protected]

Contact Induced Categories. A case study of evidentiality in Kakua

MAP: V

www.googlemaps.com

II. THE KAKUA –GRAMMATICAL– EVIDENTIAL SYSTEM

1. Overviewː

Typological complex system (from synchronic perspective)

Marking of 6 categories (distinction of 7 categories)

Older paradigm with prefixed markers vs. newer paradigm with suffixed markers

Table 1. Evidential Paradigm in Kakua

Unmarked Prefixed (older) Suffixed (newer)

visual non-visual – inferred -

second-hand t– reported -wɨt

assumed –

uncertain-future/2nd

assumed n–

2. Older system: prefixes

A. Visual [unmarked –typologically common]/default: Encodes visually

witnessed/experiencedevents

1) - - gŋ-ʔen-ep-be ʔ - ʔ- - this-LOC.EMPHZ? 1SG-insert.into.a.hole-see-PST-REC.PST hole-not.exist-NEG-nothing

‘I tried to poke with the stick on this side but there was no hole’

Vaupes area

Kakua


3

Also extends to refer to generally known facts, in which cases the realis ff ‘-ka’ d:

2) - ʔ-diʔ - ʔ-kan-ka blancos-POSS-OBJ 1PL-know-NEG-REALIS

‘w d ’t know anything of the whites (S ’

B. Non-visual [prefixed –]:

encodes first hand sensory (but no visually) acquired information/ self experienced events

no clear etymological source

3) - - uʔ ʔ -bit ʔ - - ɨ -ɨ - 3SG.M-side-that.side hole-diminutive 3SG.M-NON.VIS-have-PST-REM.PST

‘With the stick I feel that there was a little hole on this side’

4) ʔí ʔ - - ɨ ɨ-ɨ -nap uncle 3SG.M-NON.VIS-hunt-PST- ?

‘ y c g’ d

C. Second hand [prefixed t–]:

Encodes information not experienced personally (non-first hand info)

It often co-occurs with either inferred or reported evidential markers (suffix markers of the newer

system)

No clear etymological source

5) - - ʔ -t-hem-ep-ta-be

go-x-REM.PST 3PL 3PL-SECOND.HAND-eat-PST-INFERRED-REC.PST

‘ f v g g ne, y ’ evidence of food left)

6) ʔ -t-ʔ ʔ -t- hiw 3SG.M-SECOND.HAND-sleep 3SG.M-SECOND.HAND-avenge/consequence jaguar kan-diʔ ʔ -t- -ep-wɨt-be 3SG.M-NON.SUBJ 3SG.M-SECOND.HAND-eat-PST-REP.EVID-REC.PST

‘ c f , j g ’ d f

D. Assumed [prefixed –]

Encodes statements of internal evidence:

o ’ , w v c , g , hypotheses

o cultural, historical, physical interpretation/knowledge of the world

o no available/demonstrable evidence

It has -defined by context- either an aspectual meaning or evidentiality meaning

? Probably comes from pinaʔ ‘ c ’ ?


7) -heʔ ʔ - -nawʔ-kan-be -diʔ 1SG-just 3PL-ASSUMED-tell-NEG-REC.PST 1SG-NON.SUBJ

‘ y v ’

8) panit-na baj-ni - - ʔ-na because-? 1SG be.small-ADJVZ 1SG-ASSUMED-know-?

‘ c f I I w ’

E. Uncertain future: prefix n-

Encodes: hypothetical situation in the future/uncertain-future

o n- ‘ c f , assumes g g ’ w g d

sense of evidentiality, rather than aspectual. (2nd

Assumed)

o based on internal knowledge, speaker assume that the event is going to happen

o may co-occurs with the inferred envidential suffix (newer system)

?Probably from bound-verb -min- ‘ g /d ’?

(9) ʔi-n-h wʔ-na 3PL-UNCERTAIN.FUTURE-come-?

‘(I think) y’ c ’

10) Víctor ʔa-n- -beh-bip-na

Victor 3SG.M-UNCERTAIN.FUTURE-take.a.walk-go-FUT-?

‘ c g g g f w ’

11) -beh-min-na-ka ʔ-tɨb-at-diʔ

1SG-go-plan.to.go-?-REALIS 1SG.POSS-be.pain-NMLZ-NON.SUBJ

ʔ -n-ʔen-at-pinaʔ 3SG.M-UNCERTAIN.FUTURE-see-NMLZ-POT

‘I g y v y d ’

3. Newer system

A. Inferred [suffixed– ]

inference usually based on some sort of demonstrable proof : tangible like in (12), or observable like

in (13) where is inferred that some people have left/ speculation

no clear etymological source (perhaps 'tak' back?)

12) webit-diʔ ʔ -ʧ ʔ- mɨhiw child-NON.SUBJ 3SG.M_SECOND.HAND-bite-INFERRED dog

‘ d g c d’ v a dog, there is the scar)


5

13) ʔ - -ɲan-pet-ta-be

3PL_SECOND.HAND-escape-go.inside.the.forest-spread-INFERRED-REC.PST

‘T y’v c d f ’

B. Reported [suffixed –wɨt]: Encodes second hand reported information

o differs from the first hand and second hand markers in its distribution: suffixed

o has a more clear etymological source (cognate wɨt ‘c d’

dː v y d, v d v , w marking of reported evidential

9) -nih-na kan bɨdi- -na-wɨt- woooooo-say-? 3SG.M/N be.big-make.noise-?-REPORTED-REM.PST

‘w w wooooo, w w d d d ’

10) u - -diʔ h wʔ-ɲɨʔ wiʔ-kan-ka there-relative-NON.SUBJ come-stop not.exist-NEG-REALIS

nih-na-wɨt- say-?-REPORTED-REM.PST

‘ y arrived and stood somewhere like there and said “they are not here”’ y

came and stopped and said ‘ ’).

III. EVIDENTIAL CATEGORIES IN EASTERN TUKANOAN LANGUAGES

g g d v v d c f c in affirmative clauses:

o visual, nonvisual, inferred, and reported (second hand)

Evidentials markers tend to be fused with tense, person, and number distinctions (c.f. Barnes 1984,

1999; Malone 1988, Aikhenvald 2002, etc) Although not for all categories! (c.f Stenzel 2004:344-45)

Forms in East Tukanoan are suffixed

Forms have had a development through semantic extension

Wanano: visual (Stenzel 2004:352)

a. ~ o’o-i hi-ri ~di-a

INT-LOC COP-INT say-ASSERT.PERF

“W ?” d

b. ~o-i hi-re ~di-a DEIC:PROX-LOC COP-VIS.PERF.NON.1 say-ASSERT.PERF

“ ” y w d


Tucano: visual rez 1997: 323)

k -gɨ - 3SG be.big-NOM.F_SG be-VIS.PRES

‘ / g’

Wananoː inferred S 200 ː 358

yoa-ta-pʉ wiha- u’sʉ-ri hi-ra be.far-REF-LOC mov.outward-just.complete-V_NOM_INFER COP-VIS.IMPF.NON.1

‘T y’v g y’v c d ’

Cubeo: inferred c n 2012:281)

eda-kɨbe he arrive-INFERRED.3M

‘H v d’

(the arrival moment was not observed, but the speaker sees the person inside the house)

Desano: assumed (Miller 1999:67)

b ʔ yoaro-ge aʔhra-y-a 2sg far-LOC come-ASSUMED-NON.3

‘y v c g w y ’

Siriano: reported1(Criswell &Brandrup 2000:401)

- - - -jupo she machete-CL-CD wish-REC.PST-REPORTED

‘ ’ d w d c ’

IV. EVIDENTIALITY IN NUKAK?

L w / v N ’ g

o D. Mahecha has found a suffixed optional reported evidential marker

c g ‘wɨt’ (reported suffix in Kakua): free verb in Nukak ‘c d’

no prefixing in Nukak (except for person/number proclitics)

V. PREFIXES AND SUFFIXES: OLDER VS. NEWLY DEVELOPED CATEGORIES

Parrallels between Kakua and Tukanoan evidential systems.

‘wɨt’ w v f c N v dence for it to be undergoing a grammaticalization in Kakua as

an evidential marker.

“L g v d y y y c -linguistically (Aikhenvald & Dixon 1998); and

f c d g d d c f d ff ” A v d 2002:118

1Criswell & Brandrup (2000) analyze ff ‘ f d’


7

TABLE 2. Older vs. newly developed categories: the arguments in favor

Counter argument:

Lack of evidentiality system in Nukak (an optional reportative)/ maybe Nukak has lost it

VI. CONCLUSIONS

TABLE 3. Synchronic evidential paradigms in Kakua

Kakua has a typologically complex evidential system

Two paradigms: prefixing and suffixing. Probably developed in two different stages

Evidentiality as a product of diffusion (Rather than chance/linguistic tendency. c.f., Aikhenvald &

Dixon 1998: 245)

Evidentiality fairly wide-spread in Amazonia supporting characterization of a linguistic area

Areal influences as the responsible for the complex evidentiality distinctions in Kakua

Lack of such distinctions in Nukak ( ’ g g ) gg c

linguistic area is a robust area of feature diffusion.

P f g N ː 2 ː a) these distinctions have been lost in Nukak.

or, b) Kakua also developed all of its evidentiality categories in an older stage where prefixing

seemed as a good strategy given that Tukanoan paradigm fuses person, number (and gender) with

evidential markers.

-Kakua and Nukak have proclitics marking person and number, s c d’v g d c

to have the evidential next to the person/number distinction marked on the verb by prefixes, to fit

with the ET strategy of fusing evidentiality with person, number (and gender).

VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I owe my thanks to the Kakua people for help on this process of learning their language.

Also, I owe my gratitude to Patience Epps for support and guidance.

Thanks to Frank Seifart for comments on previous stages for this work and also thanks to the Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology for academic sponsorship.

Older system (prefixes) Newer system (suffixes)

Shortness of forms/ morphological integration

Sistematicity

No clear etymological source

syntactic slot

M c ’ c d g gy

clear etymological source for at least one

syntactic slot

expansion of the evidentiality system / as result

of areal diffusion f f

Older system Newer system

visual [unmarked] reported [suffixed]

first hand [prefixed] inferred [suffixed]

second hand [prefixed]

assumed [prefixed]

uncertain-future (2nd

assumed) [prefixed]


References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 1999. "Areal Diffusion and language contact in the Icana-Vaupes basin,

north-west Amazonia". In Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds) The Amazonian

Languages. pp. 385-416. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra and R.M.W Dixon. 1998. “Evidentials and areal typology: a case study

from Amazonia”. Language Sciences 20: 241-257.

Barnes, Janet. 1984. ‘Evidentials in Tuyuka verb’. International of American Linguistics.Vol 50,

number 3, pp 255-271. University of Chicago Press.

Barnes, Janet. 1999. “Tucano”. In The Amazonian Languages. Alexandra Aikhenvald & R.M.W

Dixon (eds). Cambridge Universtiy Press.

Bolaños, Katherine & Patience Epps. 2009. “Linguistic Classification of Kakua, a language of

Northwest Amazonia”. Paper presented at the Conference of Indigenous

Languages of Latin America CILLA-IV. The University of Texas at Austin,

October 31st, 2009.

Chacon Costa, Thiago. 2012. The phonology and morphology of Kubeoː the documentation,

theory, and description of an Amazonian language. Ph.Ddiss. University of

Hawai’i at Manoa.

Criswell, Linda and Beverly Brandrup. 2000. “Unbosquejofonologico y grammatical del

Siriano”. In Lenguas Indigenas de Colombia. unavisiondescriptive. Maria

Stella Gonzales de Perez and Maria Luisa Rodriguez de Montes (eds.). pp. 395-

415. Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Santa fe de Bogota.

Dixon, R.M.W and Alexandra Aikhenvald. 1999. The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge.

Cambridge University Press.

Epps, Patience. 2005. Areal diffusion and the development of evidentiality. Evidence from Hup.

Studies in Language 29: 3, 617-650. John Benjamin's Publishing Company.

Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Mouton & Gruyter. Berlin

Jackson, Jean. 1983. The fish people: linguistic exogamy and Tukanoan identity in northwest

Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malone, Terrell. 1988. “The origin and development of Tuyuca evidentials”. International

Journal of American Linguistics, 54:119–40. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Miller, Marion. 1999. Desano grammar. Arlington: SIL and the University of Texas at Arlington

[Studies in the Languages of Colombia 6].

Ramirez, H. 1997. ‘A Fala Tukano dos Yepa-masa’. Tomo 1 Gramatica. InspectoriaSaleciana

Stenzel, Kristine. 2004. ‘A reference grammar of Wanano’. PhD dissertation. University of

Colorado.

Silverwood-Cope, Peter. 1972. A Contribution to the Ethnography of the Colombian Maku.

Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge.

Sorensen, Arthur P. 1967. “Multilingualism in the northwest Amazon”. American Anthropologist

69:670–84.


9

Abbreviations

1, 2, 3 first, second, third person; NEG negative

ADJVZ adjectivizer NMLZ nominalizer

ASSERT assertion NOM nominalizer

ASSUMED assumed evidential NON.1 non first person

CD direct complement NON.3 non third person

CL classifier NON.SUBJ non subject

COP copula PERF perfective

DEIC deictic PRES present

EMPHZ? emphasizer PROX proximate

FUT future PST past

IMPERF imperfective REALIS realis

INFERRED inferred REC.PST recent past

INT interrogative REM.PST remote past

INT interrogative REPORTED reported evidential

LOC locative SG singular

M masculine VIS visual

UNCERT.FUT uncertain future evidential

SECOND.HAND second hand evidential

the nature of evidentiality. leiden, june 14th. 2012 1 contact

Documents