Evidentiality and Admirativity: Semantic-Functional Aspects of the Bulgarian 1-Participle

言語研究(Gengo Kenkyu)126(2004),1～38 1

Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII (Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology)

Key words: 1-participle, evidentiality, admirativity, speaker's

attitudes toward knowledge, pastness, presentness

1. Introduction 1.1 The Problem This paper deals with the meanings and functions of 1-participleconstructions in Bulgarian, and proposes a new definition of their basic semantic feature that enables us to provide a unified description of the various functions and usages of such constructions. The paper also shows how participle type (aorist participle or imperfect participle) determines function distribution. The1-participle constructions have functions and usages (some invariant, some contextual) in the domains of aspectuality, temporality, and modality including resultant state (Vlakat e pristignal. 'The train has arrived.'), current relevance of past action (Az sam cela taxi kniga. 'I * ABBREVIATIONS USED IN GLOSSES AOR aorist ATCL article AUX auxiliary verb EVID evidential FEM feminine IPF imperfect IPFV imperfective MASC masculine NEUT neutral PFV perfective PL plural POSS possessive PP participle PRES present (indicating here the 1-participle) QUES. PTCL question particle RFLX reflexive SG singular 2 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII have read this book.'), indefinite past (Az sam hodil v Japonija. 'I have gone to Japan.'), inference (Ti si plakala. 'You have been crying.'), report (Toj dosal. 'It is reported that he came.'), surprise/irony/compliment(Tja svirela mnogo hubavo. 'She plays very well.'), and disbelief (Zagubili sme bili voijnata. 'We have lost the war (but I can't believe it).'). The 1-participle also appears in conditional (bi kazal 'he would say') and pluperfect constructions (bjah kazal'I had said')'). At first glance, functions such as inference and report seem to have nothing in common with functions such as surprise, irony, and compliment. However, the semantic domain of the 1-participledoes possess a feature that underlies these various functions and usages. Many previous studies2)(Balan, 1886, 1957/1976; Andrejcin, 1944, 1957/1976;Jakobson, 1957/1971;Aronson, 1967; Pencev, 1967; Stankov, 1967; Gerdzikov, 1977, 1984; Friedman, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1999, 2000) deal with the semantic description') of the 1-participleand many notions have been proposed ('non-witness', Balan; 'indirect speech', Andrejcin, Pencev, Stankov; 'source of information', Jakobson; 'non-confirmativity', Aronson, Friedman; 'speaker's commitment to the utterance regarding the event', Gerdzikov). The definition of the basic semantic feature of a form depends on what functional parameters are taken into account; in other words, it is a matter of degree. Thus, notions such as 'non-witness', 'indirect speech' or 'source of information' are valid if one deals only with the evidential functions of the l-participle in Bulgarian, as most traditional studies do, but cannot account for its non-evidential functions (surprise, doubt, irony,

1) This paper will not deal with the conditional and pluperfect constructions because these linguistic phenomena do not directly affect the problems discussed in this study. 2) Some of the studies cited (e.g. Jakobson) do not fundamentally deal with the l-participle or Bulgarian. 3) It should be mentioned that the main concern of most of the studies cited is not exactly the semantic description of the 1-participle but rather the classification of the 1-forms. Evidentiality and Admirativity 3 compliment, etc.). Previous analyses are unsatisfactory in that, in general, they either do not attempt to provide a unified account of the evidential and non-evidential uses (they are actually treated separately in some of the studies), or the notions they propose do not explain some of the functions (mainly the non-evidential ones). There are several studies (Friedman, 1981; Gerdizkov, 1977, 1984) which deserve special attention in that they note and explain the connec- tion between the evidential and non-evidential uses of the 1-participle,but the definitions of the basic semantic feature proposed in these studies dif- fer4)from what will be proposed here. My hypothesis aims not only to explain the semantic relationship between the evidential and non-evidential functions of l-participle constructions, but also to substantiate their relationship to the meaning of their prototype (the Present Perfects)). I propose the notion of 'conscious involvement of the speaker at the moment of speaking regarding the event', or, in a broader sense, the speaker's attitudes toward knowledge'. Although this definition' mentions only 'the moment of speaking', it nevertheless implies two temporal aspects, i.e. presentness (the state of the speaker's knowledge at the moment of speaking) and pastness (the condition of the speaker's conscious involvement before the moment of speaking including past states of

4) Friedman (1981:13-14) defines the Indefinite Past (a term broader than what has been called the Indefinite Past in the- normative Bulgarian grammars) as unmarked with respect to the Definite Past's specification of confirmativity. Because of this unmarkedness for confirmativity the Indefinite Past generally implies non-confirmativity,e.g. reportedness or dubitativity; according to Fried- man, the constant meaning specifiedin all contexts is 'pastness'. On the other hand, the notion ('speaker's commitment to an utterance regarding the event') proposed by Gerdzikov (1977, 1984) is satisfactory with regard to Gerdzikov's classification,where the admirative is treated as an extension of the inferential. However, from my point of view, this notion does not satisfacto- rily account for what I call 'present admirative'. 5) The terms spelled with a capital first letter (Perfect) indicate the category while the terms spelled with a lower case first letter (perfect) indicate the meaning or the function. 4 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII knowledge, past assumptions, or even lack of knowledge which appear to be different from the speaker's present state of knowledge). The semantic elements of pastness and presentness are what relate this semantic feature to the prototypical meaning preserved in the non-modal uses of the 1-participle. The above-mentioned definition and some suggestions in this study follow proposals in two earlier works (Slobin & Aksu, 1982; Akatsuka, 19856)),whose theories will be briefly outlined later. Finally, the analysis in this study will be limited to 1-constructionsin the predicate of the main clause, and will not account for the behaviour of l-participles in subordinate clauses').

1.2 Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Bulgarian Bulgarian has a very complicated TAM system preserving some old aspects of tense, aspect, and mood categories not found in other modern Slavic languages. The linguistic phenomenon of the 1-participleis also not found in other Slavic languages except Macedonian, and instead shows typological similarities to phenomena found in other non-Slavic Balkan languages (Turkish, Albanian) or even languages from other linguistic areas (Japanese, Tibeto-Burman).

1.2.1 The Tense System Normative Bulgarian grammars (Stojanov, 1964/1993;Gramatika, 1983) distinguish nine tense forms as follows8):1) Present (hodja 'I go, I am going'), 2) Past Definite/Aorist (hodih 'I went'), 3) Past Imperfect/Imper-

6) The research of Slobin & Aksu and Akatsuka do not specificallyconcern the Bulgarian 1-participle.My reasoning for referring to these studies is explained in section 2. 7) I do not deal with 1-constructionsin subordinate clauses because, as has been pointed out (Jespersen, 1924:313), in some cases the modality of the subordinate clause is determined by its relation to the main nexus on which it is depen- dent. 8) The verb used here is hodja 'to go' and the forms are given in 1SG. Evidentiality and Admirativity 5 fect (hodeh 'I was going'), 4) Past Indefinite/Present Perfect (sam hodil I have gone'), 5) Past Perfect/Pluperfect') (bjah hodil 'I had gone'),' 6) Future (ste hodja 'I will go'), 7) Future in the Past (stjah da hodja 'I should go'), 8) Future Perfect (ste sam hodil 'I should have been gone'), 9) Future Perfect in the Past (stjah da sam hodil 'I should have gone'). The temporal system of Bulgarian has been the subject of great dispute (cf. Pencev, 1967; Bunina, 1970, 1971; Gerdzikov, 1973), mainly concerning problems resulting from the number of tenses, the distinction of absolute and relative tenses, and the distinction of tense and taxis (Pencev, 1967;Bunina, 1970, 1971; Gerdzikov, 1973) or tense and modality (Janakiev, 1962; Golfb,1964; Aronson, 1967). Another problem with the temporal system of Bulgarian is the characterization and classification of the so called Past Indefinite tense (Minalo neopredeleno vreme), one of the 1-participleforms. The characterization and classification of this form affects the analysis of the whole 1-participlesystem.

1.2.2 Aspect Types There are two types of aspect in Bulgarian represented by two different oppositions: the perfective/imperfectiveopposition (the so-called Vid) and the aorist/imperfect opposition. In accordance with the first opposition, all verbs in Bulgarian are marked for one of the features perfective or imperfective.There are many verbs which form pairs for this opposition, where one verb in the pair is perfective (kaza 'say') and the other imperfective (kazvam 'say'); these pairs differ only grammatically.However, other pairs differ not only grammatically but also lexically (pica 'to write' and prepisa 'to rewrite'). The

9) The terms Past Definite and Past Indefinite are traditionally used in standard grammars, but the forms do not actually specify 'definiteness'. For this reason I prefer to refer to these forms as Aorist and Present Perfect (or simply Perfect). Also, for Past Imperfect I use only Imperfect, and for Past Perfect, Pluperfect. When referring to the positions of normative grammars or traditional studies, I use the terms used in those studies but refer to them as 'the so-called...'. 6 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII first distinction is usually classified by Slavists (cf. Maslov, 1963;Ivancev, 1976) as Vid, while the latter is distinguished from Vid and classified under the scope of Aktionsart ('kind of action', Lyons, 1977). Verbs like pisa, which do not have true aspectual (grammatical) perfective correlates have been labeled in some studies (Aronson, 1977) as 'unpaired' imperfectives and are considered grammatically and pragmatically distinct from derived, or 'paired', imperfectives. This is because the perfective correlate (prepisa) has a true paired impefective correlate (prepisvam). In' Bulgarian there are also verbs (prepluvam 'swim across', paz- arya 'bargain') which behave as either perfective or imperfective,i.e. they occur in both contexts, and because of this they are classified as biaspec- tual. The other opposition, i.e. aorist/imperfect, is usually classified within the tense category, but studies exist (Maslov, 1959; Ivancev, 1976) which assert that it should be considered to belong to the same type of opposition (i.e. aspectual) as the perfective/imperfective10).The aorist/imperfect opposition is important to the distribution of the 1-participlefunctions, and will be given special attention in this study. All Bulgarian verbs have aorist and imperfect forms. The maximum aspectual combination for perfective/imperfective pairs in the aorist/ imperfect opposition consists of four items as shown below. Every verb in this combination also has an 1-participle form. 'Unpaired' imperfective verbs have only two items in this aspectual combination (see hodja below). Many of the aorist and imperfect forms of imperfective verbs (for all persons except 2, 3 SG), as well as their 1-participleforms, coincide phonetically.

10) It should be mentioned that the perfective/imperfective and aorist/imperfect oppositions belong to different levels. The perfective/imperfective opposition is superordinate, while the aorist/imperfect opposition is subordinate. The perfective/imperfective is an inherent semantic feature while the aorist/imperfect is inflectional and applies to both perfective and imperfective. Evidentiality and Admirativity 7

aorist l-participle imperfect t-participle to say' ' kaza (PFV) 1SG kazah - kazal kazeh - kazal kazvam (IPFV) 1SG kazvah - kazval kazvah - kazval to go' ' hodja (IPFV) hodih hodil hodeh - hodel

1.2.3 Mood and Modality Normative Bulgarian grammars distinguish four moods: the Indicative, the Imperative, the Conditional, and the Reportive. However, some studies (Janakiev, 1962; Golhb, 1964; Aronson, 1967) treat the future tense forms as modal"). Traditional studies of the /-participle focus attention on the Report- ive mood (Preizazno naklonenie). It has generally been claimed in Bul- garian linguistic literature that there is a formal feature, viz. the omission of the auxiliary in the third person (e, sa 'be'), which can be regarded as an adequate condition for distinguishinga separate paradigmatic set with an invariant meaning of 'report'. The paradigm of the Reportive mood identified in standard Bulgarian grammars is given below (Table 1).

Table 1 Indicative mood Reportive mood 1SG 3SG 1SG 3SG 1 hodja hodi sam hodel12) hodel 2 hodih hodi sam hodil hodil 3 hodeh hodese sam hodel hodel 4 sam hodil e hodil sam bil hodil bil hodil 5 bjah hodil bese hodil sam bil hodil bil hodil 6 ste hodja ste hodi stjal sam da hodja stjal da hodi 7 stjah da hodja stele da hodi stjal sam da hodja stjal da hodi 8 ste sam hodil ste e hodil stjal sam da sam hodil stjal da e hodil 9 stjah da sam hodil stele da e hodil stjal sam da sam hodil stjal da e hodil 1) Present 2) Aorist 3) Imperfect 4) Present Perfect 5) Pluperfect 6) Future 7) Future in the Past 8) Future Perfect 9) Future Perfect in the Past 8 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII 1.3 l-Participle Constructions and Types of Classification 1.3.1 l-Participle Constructions The 1-participle has many forms that differ not only in participle type (hodil AOR/hodel IPF), but also depending on the presence or absence of the auxiliary in the third person (e hodil/hodil, e hodel/hodel), the auxiliary verb 13)bil ((e) bil hodil, (e) bil hodel), or the tense form (see the above paradigm of the Reportive). Classifications of these forms differ from study to study.

1.3.2 Classifications As was indicated above in section 1.2.3, normative grammars (cf. Andrejcin, 1944; Stojanov, 1964/1993; Gramatika, 1983) distinguish a separate paradigm with an invariant meaning of 'report'. This paradigm has an omitted auxiliary in the third person forms and is said to be different formally, semantically and functionally from the so called Past Indefinite (Minalo neopredeleno vreme), which is treated as an Indica- tive form with an invariant meaning of 'indefinite past'. Constructions in which the Imperfect participle preserves the auxiliary in the third person (e hodel) are rarely mentioned in normative grammars. Constructions

11) The definition of modality varies from study to study. Sometimes modality is defined as 'opinions or attitudes of the speaker towards the proposition' (Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986), sometimes as 'the ontological evaluation of the event' (Gol4b, 1964; Chung & Timberlake, 1985).The latter definition includes in the meaning of modality only the reality/non-reality opposition rejecting its subjectivecharacter. I followthe first definition;when I mention 'modal' I mean subjective'. ' 12) When the 1-constructionis given independently (outside the context or in paradigms), the order of the elements in the construction willbe given as auxiliary and participle (sam hodel). In real examples, however, an inversion is possible (cf. Az sam hodel/Hodel sam). When the subject pronoun (az) is omitted the participle precedes the auxiliary. 13) I refer to sam, si, e, sme, ste, sa as the auxiliary, and to bil as the auxiliary verb. Basically, both descend from the same verb (bada), but while bil has a conjugation (changes for tense, person, or modality) and can function as a main verb, the auxiliary cannot change its form except for person, and neither can be used independently. Evidentiality and Admirativity 9 with the auxiliary verb bil are considered to be emphatic variants of the reportive forms. The chief concern of standard grammars is to identify the main semantic feature of the category") called 'Preizkazno naklonenie': 'non-witness' (nesvidetelstvenost)or 'indirect narration' (neprjako/nelicno tvardenie). In another approach (Pencev, 1967;Stankov, 1967), the forms for the Aorist, Imperfect, Pluperfect, Future in the Past and Future Perfect in the Past are considered to form the 'witnessed' paradigm, and the forms omitting the auxiliary in the third person are considered to form a different paradigm called 'indirect narration'. The rest of the tense forms, as well as the forms preserving the auxiliary in the third person (with either aorist or imperfect participles), are considered to have functions both in 'indirect narration' contexts or in a 'witnessed' context. Due to such variability they are classifiedas 'neutral' (neutralni). In contrast to the normative grammars, Friedman (1982, 1999,2000) rejects the existence of a separate paradigmatic set with omitted auxiliary in the third person and an invariant meaning of 'report'. According to him (2000: 334), auxiliary omission is a pragmatic device encoding narrative perspective and cannot constitute the basis for setting up a separate paradigm. As for the bil constructions, Friedman says that non-confirmativity has become the marked meaning. Following Aronson (1967), he defines the category to which the 1-constructionsbelong as Indicative Status, thus rejecting their modal") character. One more point of view should be mentioned here: that of Gerdzikov (1977, 1984). His approach differs greatly from that of previous research- ers. First, he puts all the 1-participleforms and the tense forms into a modal category called Modus Dicendi (see Table 2 below; forms are given in 3SG), which he considers to be a modality category different from the other moods (Indicative, Imperative, Conditional) both semantically and functionally. In order to systematize this category, Gerdzikov introduces

14) The problem is whether it is even a category at all. 15) Friedman defines modality as 'the ontological evaluation of the event'. 10 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII two distinctive features: subjectivity and reportedness. Further, he distinguishes four paradigms for this category: Modus testimonialis (the tense paradigm), Modus conclusivus (the l-participle constructions preserving the auxiliary in the third person), Modus renarrativus (the 1-participleconstructions omitting the auxiliary in the third person), and Modus inveritativus (the bil constructions). Following Gerdzikov's approach, Modus testimonialis is. unmarked regarding both subjectivity and reportedness, Modus conclusivusis unmarked with respect to reportedness but marked for subjectivity,Modus renarrativus presents the opposite situation"), and Modus inveritativus is marked both for subjectivity and reportedness. In Gerdzikov's description the Past Definite (/Aorist) Modus conclusivus and the Past Indefinite (/Present Perfect) have the same formal features but differ modally. Thus, he says, they should be considered as different forms with different meanings and functions belonging to different paradigms: Modus conclusivusand Modus testimonialis.

Table 2 Modus Dicendi Modus Modus Modus Modus testimonialis conclusivus renarrativus inveritativus non-subjective subjective non-subjective subjective non-reported reported 1 hodi e hodel hodel bil hodel 2 hodi e hodil hodil bil hodil 3 hodese e hodel hodel bil hodel 4 e hodil e bil hodil bil hodi - 5 bee hodil e bil hodil bil hodil - 6 Re hodi stjal e da hodi stjal da hodi stjal bil da hodi 7 stele da hodi stjal e da hodi stjal da hodi stjal bil da hodi 8 ste e hodil - stjal da e hodil stjal bil da e hodil 9 stele da e hodil stjal e da e hodil stjal da e hodil stjal bil da e hodil 1) Present 2) Aorist 3) Imperfect 4) Present Perfect 5) Pluperfect 6) Future 7) Future in the Past 8) Future Perfect 9) Future Perfect in the Past

16) Gerdzikov defines Modus dicendi as modal (=subjective), but indicates Mo- dus renarrativus has a 'non-subjective' character; this sounds contradictory. Evidentiality and Admirativity 11 Since the main concern of this study is the functions of the l-participle and the definition of its basic semantic feature, I will not detail the grammatical classificationof the l-constructions, nor do I intend to dispute the adequacy of existing proposed classifications.However, since the relationship of the functions and their forms is being discussed here, I will briefly outline my point of view on the systematization of the l-constructions. As previously mentioned, the l-participle constructions have non- modal (temporal, aspectual) as well as modal (evidential (inferential, reportive) and non-evidential (surprise, irony, compliment)) functions. The functional domain of the 1-participleconstructions overlaps with the domains of the three different grammatical categories of Tense, Aspect, and Mood. Thus it is difficult to find a single grammatical category for all the constructions, and in any case a classificationinto grammatical categories does not aid the purpose of the present study. For this reason I prefer to treat the l-constructions on a more abstract level, i.e. as a process of subjectification17)whereby the Tense/Aspect domain and the Modality domain form a continuum. The synchronic state of this process presents a situation in which the construction with the aorist participle preserving the auxiliary in the third person (e hodil) displays multifunctionality18)and polysemy, and has usages in three different domains: aspectuality ('current relevance of past event'), temporality ('indefinite past'), and modality

The idea behind Gerdzikov's analysis itself is not contradictory, but the terms used need an explanation (which Gerdzikov does not provide). To avoid ambiguity I think it is useful to distinguish two levels of subjectivity (this is, I suppose, what Gerdzikov intended): one equivalent to modality (modal/non- modal=subjective/non-subjective), and one equivalent to `speaker's belief' throughout which 'report' and 'inference' can be distinguished. In accordance with such a description, report is subjective but not in the same way that inference is. Palmer (1986:53-54) makes similar remarks about the Quotative. 17) For 'subjectification' I follow Traugott's (1989: 35) definition which states: "Subjectification[is the process whereby] meanings tend to become increasingly based in the speaker's subjectivebelief state/attitude toward the proposition." 18) The multifunctionality (and consequently the polysemy) of this construction has been greatly disputed; there are studies (Gerdzikov, 1977, 1984) which do not recognize it and instead discusshomophony. 12 Eleonora YovxovA-SrnI

('inference', 'surprise'). Such usages, however, almost never overlap. The other l-constructions (constructions with the imperfect participle, constructions omitting the auxiliary in the third person, and bil constructions) are subjectivized and have functions entirely in the modality domain.

2. The Research of Slobin & Aksu (1982) and Akatsuka (1985) As indicated in section 1.1, some claims in this analysis follow proposals in two earlier works: Slobin & Aksu (1982) and Akatsuka (1985), whose theories I will briefly outline. My definition of the semantic feature underlying both the evidential and non-evidential uses of the l-participle in Bulgarian is based on the semantic description of the Turkish mid-form ('evidential') proposed by Slobin & Aksu (ibid.), which when applied to Bulgarian can best explain the semantic-functionalvariety of the l-participle. The epistemic scale proposed by Akatsuka (ibid.) helped me to explain how the meaning of the 'admirative' (especiallythe 'present admirative') relates to the meanings of other (evidential) functions of 1-constructions.

2.1 Slobin & Aksu (1982) The Turkish misc-constructionscan function to express inference and report, as well as surprise, doubt, and compliment; their use is very similar to that of Bulgarian l-participle constructions. When mid is suffixed to a bare verb stem, as in (1), it can express resultant states, inference, report, or surprise. On the other hand, the min- particle suffixed to the temporal stem of a verb, as in (2), or to a noun can express only report or surprise.

(1) Kemal gel-mis. Kemal come-EVID. 3SG 'Kemal came (/has come) .' a. inference, b. report, c. surprise Evidentiality and Admirativity 13

(2) Kiz-mmz cok iyi piyano cal-iyor-mus. daughter-POSS. 2PL verywell piano play-PRES-EVID.3SG Your daughter plays the piano very well.' ' a. report, b. surprise

Slobin & Aksu argue that it is not appropriate to discuss a core meaning (e.g. 'indirect experience' or 'nonwitnessed event') or a collection of separately motivated semantic and pragmatic extensions of that core. Instead, they insist on unifying all the diverse meanings of the miss-form by a common semantic feature which they define as 'unprepared mind'. Slobin & Aksu (op. cit.: 197-198) formulate their hypothesis as follows: "A general psychological or phenomenological stance toward experience seems to underlie the entire range of functions of the two past tense forms (i.e. di and mid)... The normal course of experience is character- ized by a premonitory consciousness of the contents of coming moments. We refer to this neutral, background mental set as a `prepared mind'... When a mind is unprepared events cannot be immediately assimilated... An unprepared mind has not had normal premonitory consciousness of the event in question. The event has become apparent through its conse- quences, or through report, or the experienced event is radically different from the consciousness that preceded the experience. The speaker thus feels distanced from the situation he is describing. Events which enter unprepared minds are encoded by the missparticle."

2.2 Akatsuka (1985) Akatsuka's study deals with the scope of the epistemic scale. According to Akatsuka, the conceptual domains 'REALIS' and 'IRREALIS' form an epistemic scale representing the speaker's subjective evaluation of the reality of a given situation as presented below. 14 Eleonora YOVKOVA-Simm

Traditionally, irrealis is considered to be the domain of hypothetical events only, but as Akatsuka's scale indicates, this domain also includes different degrees of the speaker's knowledge including 'newly-learned information'. The 'newly-learned information' also belongs to the domain of irrealis, since even something that is true in the real world functions as unreality for the speaker if not assimilated in the speaker's mind. Akatsu- ka's analysis also shows that the traditional distinction of conditionals as modal (irrealis) and evidentials as non-modal (realis, Indicative) is not of great help. This issue will not be discussedfurther here.

3. l-Participle Constructions and Their Functions 3.1 The Aorist l-Participle Construction with the Auxiliary in the Third Person This construction, usually called the Past Indefinite (Minalo neopredeleno vreme) in Bulgarian grammars, is formed with an auxiliary (sam 'belSG', si 'be2SG', e 'be3SG', sme 'belPL', ste 'be2PL', sa 'be3PL') and an aorist participle (AOR PP, hodil 'gone'). The normative grammars (see Gramatika, 1983) classify the meanings of this construction as follows: 1) indefinite past: an action or state which held at an indefinite moment in the past, 2) resultative: the result of a past action or state which is relevant at the moment of speaking, and 3) modal meanings:inference, uncertainty, desire, etc.

3.1.1 Non-modal Uses The indefinite past meaning is considered the basic one, whereas the Evidentiality and Admirativity 15 aspectual, i.e. resultative, meaningis considered secondary.However, some studies (Andrejcin, 1957/1976:278; Pasov, 1965/1976:190-191; Maslov, 1981: 253) state that the resultative meaning should be considered more basic. I subscribe to the opinion that the aspectual meaning") should be considered the more basic, and that the tense meaning (indefinite past) is a consequence of this basic meaning. I define the basic meaning of this construction (which I prefer to call simply the Perfect) as 'present/current relevance of a past event/action'20). The approach which classifies the aspectual meaning as more basic has often been attacked (cf. Lindstedt, 2001:204). These attacks are based on the fact that this construction can be used with definite past time adverbs, as in (3) and (4).

(3) Vlak-at e pristigna-1 v 3 casa. train-ATCL be3SG arrive-PP.MASC at 3 o'clock The train arrived here at 3 o'clock. ' (4) Dosa-l sam tuk oste v 7 casa. come-PP.MASC belSG here still at 7 o'clock I came here at 7 o'clock.'/'I was already here at 7 o'clock.''

In my opinion, the co-occurence of this form with definite past time adverbs does not disprove the priority of the resultative meaning because propositions like (3) and (4) imply not a mere past event but rather what (3') and (4') indicate21.

(3') Vlakat pristigna v 3 casa i sega e tuk. The train came here at 3 o'clock and ' it is here now.'

19) The perfect is not aspectual in the sense that perfective/imperfectiveor aorist/imperfect are aspectual in Bulgarian. 20) Andrejcin (1957/1976:278) proposes a similar definition. 21) That is the difference in the propositions with the Aorist form (Vlakat pristigna v tri casa. 'The train arrived at three o'clock.', Dojdoh tuk v sedem casa. 'I came here at seven o'clock.'), which imply only that the act is completed at a certain time in the past with no reference to a current relevance. 16 Eleonora YovKOVA-SHIT

(4') Dojdoh v 7 casa i sega sam tuk. I came here at 7 o'clock and now ' I am here.'

There are two other reasons22)to consider the aspectual meaning as more basic. First, the aspectual meaning can help to explain the inferential use of this construction23).Second, the aspectual meaning justifies the functions/usages of the l-participle constructions with present implication (the so-called 'present admirative', which will be discussedlater), i.e. it justifies the semantic relationship between the prototype and the newly derived -constructions. l The basic, i.e. aspectual, meaning of this form is preserved in its use as an attribute (noun-modifier(5)) or as an experiential with a first person agent (6).

(5) Zakasne-l-i-te ufenitz-i sto-jaha nastrana. late-PP-PL-ATCL student-PL stand-IPF.3PL aside The students who were late were standing aside.' ' (6) Hodi-1 sam v Japonij a. go-PP.MASC belSG in Japan I have gone (=been) to Japan.' '

The basic meaning of this form, conveying the result of a past action/ state24) relevant at the moment of speaking, leads to its secondary meaning as an 'indefinite past' because an action or a state, expressed via its results, does not require specificationregarding the moment of its occur- rence.

22) Only synchronicfactors are discussedhere. However, it should be mentioned that, diachronically,the resultative meaning is primary. 23) Many grammar books and studies on Bulgarian point. out the inferential usage of the so called Minalo neopredeleno vreme but do not give an explanation for the semantic relationship of the past (basic) meaning and the inferential meaning. 24) When the 1-participle is derived from an imperfective verb (fete>cel 'has read'), the Perfect mainly conveys current relevance of a past action. The resultative meaning is weaker than that of the 1-participlederived from a perfective verb (spre>sprjal 'has/isstopped'), where the resultative meaning is stronger. Evidentiality and Admirativity 17

3.1.2 Modal Evidential Uses: Inference from Result When the construction with the aorist participle occurs with a first person agent (6), it functions as an experiential if there are no particular pragmatic or lexical constraints. However, when this construction occurs with a second or third person agent (7), (8), (9), its modal (=subjective) meaning is strengthened.

(7) Rado, ti si plaka-l-a. Rado you be2SG cry-PP-FEM 'Rado , you have been crying.' (8) Ivan e dosa-l. Ivan be3SG come-PP.MASC (It seems) Ivan has 'come.' (9) Vlak-at e zamina-l. train-ATCL be3SG go-PP. MASC (It seems) The train has gone.' ' This usage can be defined as 'inferential'. As Comrie (1976: 110) points out, the semantic similaritybetween Perfect and Inferential lies in the fact that both present the event not in itself, but via its results. The acquisition of modal meanings of the Perfect as well as the existence in Bulgarian of another past tense form, i.e. the Aorist, whose functions are limited to 'direct experience' or 'confirmativity', facilitated the expansion of the functional domain of the 1-constructionsinto the modality domain. It is claimed (Comrie, 1976;Dahl, 1985; Bybee & Dahl, 1989;Bybee et al., 1994)that the diachronic shift of the Perfect (resultative) takes two directions. One direction is from a resultative to a perfective/simple past tense. This occurred in Slavic languages other than Bulgarian and Mace- donian. The other direction is from a resultative to an evidential25>.This occurred in the Slavic languages in the Balkans. The influence of Turkish is said to have been the stimulus for this shift in the Balkan Slavic lan-

25) The term 'evidential' is used only for convenience and implies more than merely 'inference' or 'report/hearsay'. 18 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHIT guages. Most hypotheses regard the situation in Bulgarian as a borrowing from Turkish (which distinguisheslinguistically 'direct evidence', marked by the di-form, and 'indirect evidence', marked by the miss-form).Simi- larities with the Turkish evidential system are striking, but it is difficultto accept that such similarities are simply the result of a calque or borrowing process. As Friedman points out (1978:108), the influence of Turkish cannot be denied, but this language merely provided the impetus for what was an essentially native development. As previously mentioned, most of the normative Bulgarian language grammars regard the construction made up of the aorist participle and the auxiliary as polysemous, consisting of a perfect/indefinite past and an inferential, but some studies (Gerdzikov, 1977, 1984; Kutzarov, 1981; Maslov, 1981) deny the polysemy of this construction and separate the Perfect and the Inferential. For the Inferential these studies distinguish a separate paradigm (or category) consisting of inferential correspondences for all the tense forms26>,among which they also classify the inferential correspondences of the Aorist. I follow the traditional point of view and regard the construction with the aorist participle and the auxiliary in the third person (e hodil) as having the polysemous character of a 'perfect/past' and an 'inferential127). Due to such polysemy this form can function as part of the propositional (non-modal) content (noun modifier, experiential, resultative, past tense), as well as part of the modal content (inferential, admirative). However, in spite of such polysemy, dual interpretations are eliminated on a syntactic-contextual level (syntactic position, the person of the agent, semantic/contextual constraints), and there is almost no merging of meanings. (Sometimes, as in example (9), we can have the dual interpretation of a perfect' and an 'inferential'; such a dual interpretation, however, is fairly' reliable evidence for the process of subjectification which the 1-constructions underwent.)

26) See Gerdzikov's Modus conclusivus. 27) Friedman also acknowledgespolysemy (cf. 1981:13). Evidentiality and Admirativity 19 When the agent is a second or third person (as in (7), (8)), the most natural interpretation is 'inferential' but the perfect meaning cannot be excluded. The perfect meaning in fact functions as an implicature for the inferential meaning.

3.2 Purely Modal /-Constructions and Their Functions Besides the construction with the aorist participle and the auxiliary which has non-modal as well as modal functions, Bulgarian has developed a set of l-participle constructions functioning entirely in the modality domain (constructions with an imperfect participle, constructions omitting the auxiliary in the third person, and constructions adding the auxiliary verb bil).

3.2.1 The Imperfect Participle Construction with the Auxiliary in the Third Person For the construction with the aorist participle and the auxiliary in the third person, the modal evidential function is limited to inference from the result of a completed event. The inferential function of this construction presupposes completion of the event and the existence of a result. Such presuppositions are what distinguish this type of inference from the inference conveyed by the construction where the imperfect participle (IPF PP) preserves the auxiliary in the third person (e hodel). This construction and its functions cause many problems in classifying 1-participleconstructions and their functions. This participle corresponds to a Present form (hodi-e hodel) as well as to a Past Imperfect form (hodese-e hodel). As previously mentioned, some classifications(Pencev, 1967; Stankov, 1967) place the construction among the 'neutral forms' (where the Present Perfect/Past Indefinite is included also), i.e. the forms said to have non-modal as well as modal functions. In other classifications (Gerdzikov, 1977,1984), it is treated as a purely modal construction without indicative (non-modal) functions. Sometimes it is not even included in the paradigm of standard forms (Andrejcin,1944; Aronson, 1967). 20 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII In order to reveal the nature and functions of this 1-participleconstruction it is reasonable to compare its uses with those of the aorist participle construction.

(10) Toj e pi-l. Litze-to mu e he be3SG drink-PP.MASC face-ATCL his be3SG cerven-o. red-NEUT It seems' he drank. His face is red.' (11) *Toj e pie-l. Litze-to mu e he be3SG drink-PP.MASC face-ATCL his be3SG cerven-o. red-NEUT *'Itseems he was drinking. His face is red.'

The participle in (11) is used as a correspondence to the Past Imperfect tense form (piel<-piese) and should not be confused with the use of this participle instead of the Present tense form (piel+-pie)28). As the above two examples show, the construction with the aorist participle (10) can express 'inference from result' while the proposition with the imperfect participle construction (11) cannot. The 'inference from result' meaning can be strengthened (10) by using adverbs such as izglezda/javno 'likely/seems'. However, the use of these adverbs with the imperfect participle in contexts of 'inference from result' strengthens the unacceptability of the proposition (11'). 28) The imperfect participle constructions have functions in different temporal domains; I view the distribution of the functions and temporal orientation in the following way. When the auxiliary is preserved, the imperfect participle construction expresses inference from report (discussed in section 3.2.1). When the auxiliary is omitted (discussedlater in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4),if the temporal orientation of the event is past, the meaning can only be reported (Toj piel kogato tja dosla. 'It is said that he was drinking when she came.') If, however, the temporal orientation of the event is present, the meaning can be admirative (Toj piel! 'He drinks/can drink!') or report (Toj piel mnogo vseki den. 'It is said that he drinks every day/usually a lot.'). The temporal orientation and the functional distribution are contextually determined. Evidentiality and Admirativity 21

(10') Toj izglezda/javno e pil. Litzeto mu e cerveno. It seems he drank. His face is red.' ' (11') *Toj izglezda/javno e piel. Litzeto mu e cerveno. It seems he was drinking. His face is red.' '

The imperfect participle construction with the auxiliary also expresses inference. However, such inference is not 'inference from result' but what I prefer to call 'inference from hearsay/report'29)(or 'subjective report'). This function differs from the 'inference from result' expressed by the aorist participle constructions as well as from 'pure report' (cf. note 35) which, as will be mentioned later, is expressed by the construction without an auxiliary. This imperfect participle construction has its own scope of use and appears where neither 'inference from result' nor 'pure report' are possible, i.e. in discourses expressing inference based on report ((12), e cetjala), comments on historical chronicles, or science-fiction writing ((13), e mo,zelo).

(12) Tja e cetja-l-a kogato toj dosa-1. she be3SG read-PP-FEM when he come-PP.MASC It seems (since it is said) that she was reading when ' he came.' (13) Togava samo ustno-to predanie e mote-l-o da then only oral-ATCL legend be3SG can-PP-NEUT to razkaze nesto za skrit-i-te v magla-ta tell something about hidden-PL-ATCL in mist-ATCL na vreme-to "detski" godin-i na covecestvo-to. of time-ATCL "childish" year-PL of mankind-ATCL At that time only oral legends were able to ' tell something about the "childhood" years of mankind, hidden in the mists of time.'

29) This form is functionally very similar to the Japanese rashii; the difference between 'inference from report', expressed by the imperfect participle, and 'inference from result', expressed by the aorist participle in Bulgarian resembles the behaviour of rashii and yooda in Japanese. 22 Eleonora YOVKOVA-Sxmi Some specific examples30)exist where the imperfect participle using the auxiliary in the third person with past orientation does not express 'inference from report'; these examples have been pointed out as evidence against the view that the imperfect participle 1-construction is 'purely subjective'. In my opinion, however, the existence of such examples does not contradict the 'subjectivity' (modalness) of the imperfect l-participle. First, there is a pragmatic aim in using the participle form instead of the Imperfect tense form: the speaker not only states something, but also implies her/his subjective attitude toward the proposition or the event of the proposition. Gerdzikov's opinion (1977: 56) is in line with mine31). Second, most of the relevant examples are in the context of reminiscence (az pomnja 'I remember', ne se bjah sestala 'I did not remember', pravelo mi e vpecatlenie 'it made an impression on me'), i.e. situations implying a sort of psychological distance between the speaker and the event in the proposition. As shown in the previous section, the construction with the aorist participle has non-modal as well as modal functions32). The construction with the imperfect participle, however, has only modal functions and cannot function as part of the propositional content. The imperfect participle form cannot function as a noun modifier (*cetjal covek 'was a reading

30) Here are some examples: Ami az pomnja majka mu, bre, tja mi e splitala kosite na plitki, ucela me e pesni da peja... 'But I remember his mother, she used to braid my hair in braids, she taught me songs to sing...' Otkakto go poznavam, Petjo e vse zad kormiloto, ne se bjah sestala, ce e imalo vreme,kogato ne e motel da kara kola. 'Ever since I have known him, Petjo has been behind the wheel. I forgot that there was a time when he wasn't able to drive.' Tijanesta po-rano nikoga ne sa mi praveli vpecatlenie. 'Thesethings never used to make an impression on me.' 31) Gerdzikov defines this function of the 1-participle as po-goljama ekspre- sivnost 'a bigger expressiveness'. 32) This is why this form is classifiedin some studies as a 'neutral form' (Pencev, 1967;Stankov, 1967) or 'a form unmarked for confirmativity'(Aronson, 1967; Friedman, 1999). Evidentiality and Admirativity 23 person') or as an experiential (*Hodel sam v Japonija 'I have been going to Japan').

3.2.2 Constructions without the Auxiliary in the Third Person Besides the constructions with the auxiliary in the third person, the paradigm of the 1-participlealso includes constructions that omit the auxiliary in the third person. Standard Bulgarian grammars usually classify these constructions as Reportive mood (Preizkazno naklonenie) and give them modal status").

(14) Ivan 0 dosa-1. Ivan come-PP.MASC (It is reported 'that) Ivan came.' (15) Student-i-te 0 zaminava-l-i za Japonija drug-ija mesetz. student-PL-ATCL go-PP-PL to Japan next-ATCL month (It is reported that) The students are going to Japan next month.' ' As previously mentioned, according to the normative grammars and most of the studies on evidentiality in Bulgarian, the omission of the auxiliary in the third person is sufficient formal grounds for distinguishing a separate paradigmatic set, invariably said to express report/hearsay. Friedman argues (1982, 1986) against this, saying that the omission of the auxiliary in the third person cannot justify the establishment of an independent paradigm. In his 1982 paper, he gives examples where l-participles with preserved auxiliary express report as well as examples without the auxiliary that do not express report at all. I fully agree with Friedman with regard to the latter because there are many examples without the auxiliary in the third person which do not express report/hearsay (see note 28). Most of the examples Friedman provides are precisely such examples. However, most examples with the auxiliary in the third person that Fried-

33) Though most grammars treat the reportive constructions as modal, some studies (Andrejcin, 1938,1944; Aronson, 1967; Stankov, 1967) classifythe Re- portive as Indicative mood. 24 Eleonora Yovxova-Sxmi man describes as reportive constructions34)are within the subordinate clause of a compound sentence using a 'report/hearsay' verb (sam cuval 'heardlSG' , kaza 'said3SG', saobstiha 'told3PL'). In such examples the verb in the main clause makes the reportedness explicit, and the participle in the subordinate clause can either omit or keep the auxiliary. In addi- tion, some verbs in the subordinate clause of those examples are reflexive and take the reflexive particle si, which coincides phonetically with the second person auxiliary.Thus, if the auxiliary is omitted the sentence can be ambiguous as to whether the subject is second or third person, and using the auxiliary in such examples eliminates ambiguity. In my opinion, no matter what the meaning of this construction is, i.e. hearsay or admirative (the admirative usage is discussed in a later section: 3.2.4), it always functions to express subjective attitudes. Consequently, it is modal. ' Pure report"') in a sentence without a verb of 'report/hearsay' is always expressed by an 1-participleconstruction without the auxiliary in the third person"). This can be seen in typical examples (16) of report/ hearsay in narratives where the form with the auxiliary is impossible (16').

34) Here are some examples: Tuj ne sam cul, ala sam cuval, ce smok e smucel mljakoto im. 'I haven't heard that, but I have heard that a snake sucked (sucks) their milk.' Ivan kaza, ce si e kupil nova stihosbirka. 'Ivan said that he bought himself a new collectionof poetry.' A kogato sinat saobsti, ce si e nameril kvartira I ste si pribira nestata, dojde i pripadakat. 'And when the son announced that he had found himself an apart- ment and would collect the things, then the fit came.' 35) What I call 'pure report' refers to propositions which express what has been said by a third party without indicating the speaker's belief, i.e. without implication of the speaker's qualificationof the proposition or of the information in the proposition. The difference between what I call 'subjective report' and 'pure report' in Bul- garian is similar to what rashii and sooda (report) distinguishin Japanese. 36) However, the opposite argument is not true, i.e. if the auxiliary is omitted the construction expressesreport/hearsay. Evidentiality and Admirativity 25

(16) Ima-l-o ƒÓ edno vreme edin djado i edna exist-PP-NEUT one time one old man and one

baba. Te ƒÓ njama-l-i detza.

old woman they not have-PP-PL children

Once upon a time there lived an old man and ' an old woman. They

did not have children.'

(16') *Imalo e edno vreme edin djado i edna baba. Te sa njamali

detza.37)

The auxiliary is omitted only in the third person. In the other two persons it is always preserved, and it is not possible to formally distinguish inference from report in propositions with a first or a second person agent. For such propositions, Aronson says (1967:93) that the opposition reported/ non-reported is neutralized and that the only possible meaning of the 1- participle is 'non-confirmativity'. The meaning of inference or report in a proposition with a second person agent is determined contextually. However, when the agent is first person the situation is more complicated. Inference from result made by the speaker about her/his own past state is possible only when the speaker failed to notice her/his previous action due to circumstances such as sleep or absent-mindedness. Such inference usually converts into surprise.

(17) Az sam zaspa-l-a. I belSG fall asleep-PP-FEM I fell asleep (I didn't 'even notice).' (18) Az sam si udari-l laka-ta. I belSG RFLX hit-PP.MASC elbow-ATCL I hit my elbow (I don't know when).' ' (19) Az sam si zagubi-l sapka-ta. I belSG RFLX lose-PP.MASC hat-ATCL I lost my hat (I don't know when/I didn't notice ' when it happened).'

37) (16) is not ungrammatical but is impossiblein narrative contexts. 26 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII When contextual implicature eliminates the perfect (i.e. the experiential) or the inferential meaning of the 1-participleconstruction occurring with a first person agent, the only possible meaning is 'report'. However, a 'pure report' for propositions with a first person agent is possible only if the speaker accepts her/his lack of consciousness about the reported event. Otherwise the 1-participle construction expresses disbelief as in (20b.) below.

(20) Minava-l sam ottam i ne sam go pass-PP.MASC belSG there and not belSG him pozdravi-1. greet-PP.MASC a. 'He says that I was passing by there and didn't greet him.' b. 'He says that I was passing by there and didn't greet him but I doubt it.'

In the introductory part of this study I proposed defining the semantic feature which relates the evidential and non-evidential functions of the 1-participleconstructions as 'conscious involvement of the speaker at the moment of speaking regarding the event', including 'the state of the speaker's knowledge at the moment of speaking and conscious involvement before the moment of speaking'. Here I will return to this definition and consider its validity for the evidential functions of 1-constructions.In the inferential usage, the speaker has no premonitory consciousness of the event because s/he has not witnessed it. It is the result or the resultant state of a previous event relevant at the moment of speaking that provides new information about the event. In the case of 'report', the process is basically the same, but the new information is obtained through hearsay.

3.2.3 The bil Constructions As was mentioned in section 3.2.2, constructions expressing report can express 'disbelief/doubt' implicitly through context. However, Bulgarian possesses constructions (the bil constructions) which explicitly and invari- Evidentiality and Admirativity 27 ably express 'disbelief/doubt' about the reported event"). Use of the bil constructions is most often accompanied by expressions (kakva ldza 'what a lie', ne vjarvam 'I don't believe it') which emphasize the speaker's 'disbelief/doubt' (22), (23).

(21) Yoncev stja-l bil da se ostavi of Yonchev will-PP.MASC AUX to RFLX give up from pijanstvo-to. drinking-ATCL Dase ostavi li? to RFLX give up QUES.PTCL They say that Yonchev should ' give up drinking. Shouldn't he?' (I don't believe it) (22) Zagubi-l-i sme bil-i vojna-ta. Kakva laza. lose-PP-PL be1PL AUX-PL war-ATCL what lie They say 'we have lost the war. What a lie!' ' (23) A pak deto kazva-t, ce valcitza-ta se bil-a but as say-3PL that she-wolf-ATCL RFLX AUX-FEM ovalci-l-a v niv-i-te, ne vj arva-m. bringforth young-PP-FEM in field-PL-ATCL not believe-1SG They say that the she-wolf brought forth young in the 'field, but I do not believe it.'

3.2.4 Modal Non-evidential Functions: Admirativity Besides its inferential and reportive functions, the i-participle has various modal uses which have nothing in common with evidentialityper se. I will unite these uses under the term 'admirativity'39) The admirative usage of the 1-participlewas first observed by Tsonev (1911);he compares the admirative use of Turkish iyi adam imi, to Bul-

38) Friedman (2000) defines them as marked for 'nonconfirmativity'. 39) What I include in the term 'admirativity' is broader than the usual references to this term in the existing literature. I include here not only 'surprise', but also irony', 'compliment', or 'unexpected facts'. ' 28 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHIT garian toj bil dobar covek 'he is a nice person'. However, Tsonev does not use the term 'admirative'. Weigand (1923-24) was the first to compare the Bulgarian usage with Albanian and apply the term 'admirative', but he was wrong to state that Bulgarian has a special 'Admirative mood'4o) No other study classifies the admirative function of the 1-participle in Bulgarian as a separate mood. Usually, the 'admirative' is treated as an extension of the 'reportive', mainly because of mere formal similarities between the two manifested in the omission of the third person auxiliary. Bulgarian grammars point out only the formal similarity between the reportive and the admirative, and do not even attempt to determine the semantic reasons for such similaritiy. Darden's study (1977) is an attempt to formulate the semantic grounds for such similarity. He states that the relationship is due to one of the contextual meanings of the reportive: the indication that the speaker does not believe the statement he is reporting. He writes (op. cit.: 61): "The semantic relationship between surprise and doubt may seem rather tenuous, but a simple presuppositional analysis shows that a complete semantic specificationof the concept of surprise must include the concepts of doubt and negation. The expression of surprise that S is true necessarily presupposes an expectation that S would not be true, and an expectation that S would not be true entails a doubt that S would be true." On the other hand, Gerdzikov (1984) relates the 'admirative' to the inferential'. Such a relationship does actually exist (as shown below), but' only for past (completed) events. Such a relationship cannot be estab- lished for admirativity for present (ongoing or witnessed) events. For Bulgarian, I do not believe it reasonable to view the admirative as an extension of a certain evidential function of the 1-participle,nor is it reasonable to separate the evidential and the admirative. Rather, it is bet- ter to search for a common semantic feature which could relate the vari-

40) Weigand was influenced by the situation in Albanian where the admirative has the status of a mood (for details about the Albanian admirative see Fried- man, 1986,1999,2000). Evidentiality and Admirativity 29 ous functions/usages of the 1-participle.

Admirative meaning can be expressed not only by propositions with a second or a third person agent, but also by propositions with a first person agent. Also, admirative usages can be registered in all temporal domains41)

(24) Dasterja Vi ƒÓ svire-l-a mnogo hubavo na piano! daughter your play-PP-FEM very well on piano

Your daughter plays (/can play) piano very well!' '

(25) Ti si pluva-1 mnogo dobre!

you be2SG swim-PP.MASC very well

You swim (/can swim) very well!' '

(26) Pristigna-l-i sme!

arrive-PP-PL be1PL

We arrived (/have ' arrived) !'

In the above examples, the auxiliary of the third person is omitted (24), but there are examples (27) of the admirative where the auxiliary is retained.

(27) Ilijtza v tova vreme pipa-se dete-to. Ilijtza at that time touch-IPF.3SG child-ATCL

Tj a izplak-a: -O, mamke ! Ta to e

she cry-AOR.3SG oh mother oh it be3SG

umrj a-l-o. Racitz-i-te mu led.

die-PP-NEUT hand-PL-ATCL its ice

At that time Ilijtza was touching the child. ' She cried: Oh, my God.

It is dead. Its hands are ice.'

Bulgarian grammars view the form for the admirative with preserved auxiliary in the third person as a stylistic variant of the form without the

41) It should be mentioned that it is the event causing the surprise which can exist in different temporal domains, not the modality (i.e. surprise) itself, the temporal orientation of which can onlybe present. 30 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHIT auxiliary. I believe, however, that the preservation or omission of the auxiliary in the admirative uses is much more than a mere stylistic device and depends on the type of the participle. Thus it is closely related to the aspectuality42)of the event. In present/imperfective admiratives where the participle is imperfect, the auxiliary is always omitted (see note 28). Admirativity for completed events, on the other hand, is expressed by the aorist participle, where the auxiliary is usually preserved43)(see example 27). As in the following examples (28), (29), when the aorist participle and the imperfect participle coincide formally, it is the preservation/omission of the auxiliary which distinguishesthe completion/non-completionof the event.

(28) Valjalo e! It rained!' ' (29) Valjalo ! It is 'raining!'

42) Such a relationship is supported by data from other languages. Suzuki (1997) mentions two types of 'awareness' function of the old Japanese keri: menomae- sei-no aru dekigoto-e-nokizuki 'awareness of witnessed events' and menomae- sei-no nai dekigoto-e-nokizuki 'awareness of nonwitnessed events'. Turkish also provides good evidence for the aspectual features of the event toward which 'surprise' is directed. The verb stem to which the miss-formexpressing surprise is suffixedmakes clear the 'pastness' or 'presentness' of the event. Thus surprise concerning past (completed) events is expressed by the miss-formsuffixed to the bare verb stem (gel- miss 'He came/He has come!') while surprise concerning present (witnessed) events is expressed by the miss-formsuffixed to the present stem (gel-iyorPRES- mu*'He is coming now!'). 43) However, there are admirative examples with aorist participle constructions where the auxiliary can be omitted: Oganjat zagasnal!-kaza toj kato razbuta pe- pelta. 'He said stirring up the ash: "The fire died down!"' I think that the omission of the auxiliary is possible when the verb is punctual. Punctual verbs can express only completed actions. Although they have imperfect participles (zagasnel), those participles can occur only in subordinate (conditional) clauses,thus conveying only hypothetical situations (stom/ako zagasnel 'if/when dies down'). Consequently, the main clause can contain only the construction with the aorist participle (zagasnal), i.e. the meaning is always completeness'. ' Evidentiality and Admirativity 31 The participle (aorist participle) in (28) implies the completion (pastness) of the event, i.e. raining which has stopped, as well as the fact that the speaker did not witness the rain itself. What the speaker witnesses is only the resultant state: a wet road or wet roofs, etc. It is through the resultant state that the speaker comes to know about the event. From the result, the speaker infers information about the event which preceded the result. When this result presents something that the speaker has not expected, or which contradicts her/his expectations, the inference converts into surprise. On the other hand, the participle (imperfect participle) in (29) expresses the speaker's surprise at an ongoing event, i.e. rain that is con- tinuing at the moment of speaking. The participle here can be replaced by the present tense form (Vali!). In this case, the meaning of 'surprise' will not be changed but the presupposition is different: the present tense form expresses only the speaker's surprise at the moment of speaking, while the participle form not only expresses the speaker's surprise at the moment of speaking, but also juxtaposes the speaker's present state of knowledge (or present discovery)with her/his past state of knowledge or expectations44). If the 1-participlecan formally distinguish the completion/non-completion of the action, i.e. if the verb has separate forms for the aorist participle and the imperfect participle (cf. hodil-hodel, pilpiel), the admirative for past (completed) events is expressed by the aorist participle with the auxiliary (30)45),and the admirative for ongoing/witnessed events is

44) What past expectations include can be formulated as 'I didn't think it was raining/I thought it wasn't raining'. What I argue here about Bulgarian has been argued by Friedman (1981) about the Albanian admirative. He writes (op. cit.: 23): "When speakers choose admirative forms they are expressing the fact that at some time in the past they did not expect the statement to be true and that they are therefore surprised". 45) It is possible for the construction with the aorist participle with omitted auxiliary to express surprise in certain cases, but the presupposition is 'report' ('I am surprised to hear that...'), not 'inference from result'. The process leading to the admirative meaning must also include a stage of disbelief (report>disbelief> surprise). That is what Darden specifiesabout the acquisition of the meaning of surprise (see section 3.2.4).However, such a description cannot be applied to all 32 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHIT expressed by the imperfect participle without the auxiliary (31).

(30) Toj e pi-1!46) he be3SG drink-PP.MASC He drank!' ' (31) Toj pie-1!47) he drink-PP.MASC He drinks ' (/He can drink) !'

The forms which express surprise can at the same time express compliment (32) or irony (33) with a negative implication (inability, ignorance).

(32) Tj a svire-l-a mnogo hubavo na piano. she play-PP-FEM very nice on piano She plays piano very well.' ' (33) Az sam znae-l-a mnogo dobre dum-i-te I belSG know-PP-FEM very nice word-PL-ATCL na tazi pesen. of this song I know the words ' of this song.' (with the implication `I thought I knew the words of this song but it appears that I don't know them at all.')

As previously mentioned, one of the main problems with existing definitions of the basic semantic feature of the 1-participleis that they fail to give a satisfactorydescription of non-evidential uses, especially the mechanism

admirative uses. 46). This 1-constructioncan also express (contextually) an 'inference from result' (see example 10). 47) This 1-construction can also express 'report' (see note 28). In the written language the distinction of meaning is done on a contextual level or by the use of punctuation (!). However, the punctuation is not an absolute factor and the exclamation mark is not necessarily retained (see example 27). In the spoken language it is the intonation that distinguishes the meanings. Proposi- tions expressing 'surprise'are pronounced with rising intonation or the 1-formis strongly stressed. Evidentiality and Admirativity 33 of the so-called 'present admirative'. In the admirative use for present events, the speaker is witnessing the event and thereby verifying its truth. This fact raises the question of how this function of the 1-participlecan be related to evidential usages where the speaker usually does not witness the event and cannot commit her/himself to the truth of the proposition. The psychologicalprocess underlying admirativity for present events is basically the same as that for past (/completed) events (see the explanation for ex. 28), but in this type of the admirative the speaker witnesses or experiences the event. Though the speaker witnesses the event and can verify its truth, even such an event can be perceived as unreal due to the fact that the information it brings to the speaker's mind is new ('I didn't know that until now') or unexpected (and thus 'non-assimilated' (Slobin & Aksu 1982)) and differs from the speaker's past assumptions ('I thought it to be one way up to now, but it seems the matter is different'). For this reason even witnessed events are conveyed through 1-forms,or as Akatsuka says (1985:625), even surprise is an irrealis phenomenon. The presence not only of present elements but also of past elements in the meaning of the 'present admirative' based on 1-formsis what distinguishes this type of admirativity from the admirativity expressed by the Present tense form where the element of 'pastness' (past assumptions, expectations) is absent. Again, using the above-mentioned notions of 'state of knowledge', it is not very difficult to explain how surprise converts into praise or irony. When the speaker's present discovery (the newly learned fact) exceeds her/his past assumptions (expectations), the result is positive and the surprise expands to compliments and praise. In the opposite situation, i.e. a situation in which the newly discovered fact appears to differ negatively from what had been expected, surprise converts into irony.

4. Concluding Remarks As shown above, the 1-participlehas different functions in the domains of different grammatical categories. In order to relate the various functions 34 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHH I have proposed describing their common semantic feature as 'conscious involvement of the speaker at the moment of speaking regarding the event', or in a broader sense as 'the speaker's attitudes toward knowledge', including in this notion 'the speaker's present state of knowledge juxtaposed with her/his past state of knowledge'. The present state of knowledge represents what the speaker comes to know at the moment of speaking, i.e. the new information, which can be based on inference from result, hearsay or even witnessing. This differs from the speaker's past state of knowledge, which is represented by past assumptions ('I thought it to be such and such') or even lack of knowledge (due to non-witnessing in evidential cases). This study has also shown how the participle type (aorist or imperfect) influences the distribution of 1-participlefunctions. The construction with the aorist participle preserves old, prototypical meanings, thus functioning on two levels:non-modal and modal. Meanwhile, the constructions with the imperfect participle have acquired only modal functions/usages. The synchronic situation of the 1-participleparadigm in Bulgarian is a result of a diachronic process through which the functional domain of the old Perfect extended to the modality (evidential-admirative) domain while at the same time preserving some of its prototypical features.

References Akatsuka,Noriko (1985)Conditionals and the epistemicscale. Language61-3: 625-639. Andrejcin, Ljubomir(1938) Kategorie znaczeniowekoniugacji Bulgarskiej. Krakow:Polska Akademia Umiej etnosci. (1944) Osnovna balgayskagramatika. Sofija:Hemus. (1957/1976) Kam xarakteristikata na perfekta (minalo neporedeleno vreme) v balgarskija ezik. Repr in: P. Pasov and R. Nitzolova (eds.) Pomagalo po balgarska morfologija. Glagol, 277-286. Sofija: Nauka i Izkustvo. Evidentiality and Admirativity 35

Aronson, Howard I. (1967) The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporary Bulgarian literary language. In To honor Roman Jakobson, vol. 1, 82-89. The Hague: Mouton. (1977) Interrelationships between aspect and mood in Bulgarian. Folia Slavica 1-1, 9-32. Balan, Aleksandar T. (1886) Neuspexat po balgarski v nasite ucilista.Periodicesko spisanie na balgarskoto knizovno druzestvo,21-22. (1957/1976) Cetvarto naklonenie. Repr in: P. Pasov and R. Nitzolova (eds.) Pomagalo po balgarska morfologija. Glagol, 321-335. Sofija: Nauka i Izkustvo. Bunina, Irina (1970) Istorija glagolnyx vremen v bolgarsom jazyke. Moskva. (1971) Kategorija vremeni ili kategorija taksisa? In: Issledovanija po slavjanskomujazykoznanija, 124-129.Moskva: Nauka. Bybee, Joan and Osten Dahl (1989) The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in language 13-1: 51-103. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca (1994) The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Chung, Sandra and Alan Timberlake (1985) Tense, aspect and mood. In: T. Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description 3, 202-258. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard (1976)Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, Osten (1985) Tenseand aspectsystems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Darden, Bill J. (1977) On the admirative in Bulgarian. Folia Slavica1-1: 59-63. Friedman, Victor A. (1978) On the semantic and morphological influence of Turkish on Balkan Slavic. Papers from the fourteenth regional meeting: Chi- cago linguisticsociety, 108-118. (1981) Admirativity and confirmativity. Zeitschrift f r Bal- kanoligie 17-1: 12-28. (1982) Reportedness in Bulgarian: category or stylisticvari- ant. International journal of Slavic linguistics and poetics 25-26: 149-163. (1986) Evidentiality in the Balkans: Macedonian, Bulgarian, 36 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII

and Albanian. In: W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology:168-187. Norwood. N.J.:Ablex. (1999) Evidentiality in the Balkan languages. In: U. Hinrichs (ed.) Handbuch der Siudosteuropa-Linguistik, 519-544. Wiesbaden: Harras- sowitz. (2000) Confirmative/nonconfirmativein Balkan Slavic, Bal- kan Romance, and Albanian with additional observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, and Lak. In: L. Johanson and B. Utas (eds.) Evidentials in Turkic, Iranian, and neighbouring languages,329-366. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gerdzikov, Georgi (1973) Za spornite vaprosi na balgarskata temporalna sistema. Izvestija na instituta za balgarski ezik 22: 125-150. (1977) Edna spetzificna glagolna kategorija v savremennija balgarski knizoven ezik. Godisnik na Sofijiskija universitet 69-2: 9-68. (1984) Preizkazvaneto na glagolnoto dejstvie v balgarskija ezik. Sofija: Nauka i Izkustvo. Gollb, Zbigniew (1964) The problem of verbal mood in Slavic languages. Interna- tional journal of Slavic linguisticsand poetics 8: 1-36. Gramatika na savremennija balgarski knizoven ezik II. Morfologija (1983). Sofija: BAN. Ivancev, Svetomir (1976) Problemi na razvitieto i funktzioniraneto na modalnite kategorii v balgarskija ezik. In: P. Pasov and R. Nitzolova (eds.) Pomagalo po balgarska morfologija. Glagol, 348-359.Sofija: Nauka i Izkustvo. Janakiev, Miroslav (1962) Za gramemite naricani v balgarskata gramatika 'segasno vreme' i 'badeste vreme'. Izvestija na institutaza balgarski ezik 8: 419-432. Jakobson, Roman (1957/1971)Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb: Selectedwritings II, 131-147.The Hague: Mouton. Jespersen, Otto (1924) The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. Kutzarov, Ivan (1981) Za mjastoto na taka narecenite perfektopodobni formi v morfologicnata sistema na savremennija balgarski ezik. Paper presented at the '1300 godini razvoj na balgarskija ezik i literature'. Sofija University, 3-4 March. Lindstedt, Jouko (2001) Perfektnost, preizkaznost, svidetelstvenost.In: V. Popova Evidentiality and Admirativity 37

(ed.) Traditzija i savremennost v bdlgarskija ezik, 204-210. Sofija: Univer- sitetsko Izdatelstvo. Lyons, John (1977) SemanticsII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maslov,Yuri (1959) Glagolnyivid v sovremennom bolgarskomliteraturnom jazyke. In: Sbornik v cest na Aleksandar Teodorov-Balan,311-318. Sofija. (1963) Kam tipologijata na glagolnija vid. EL I: 3-10. (1981) Grammatika bolgarskogo jazyka. Moskva: Vyssaja Skola. Palmer, Frank R. (1986) Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pasov, Petar (1965/1976)Balgarskite glagolni vremena. Repr. in: P. Pasov and R. Nitzolova (eds.) Pomagalo po balgarska morfologija. Glagol, 186-209. Sofija: Nauka i Izkustvo. Pencev, Yordan (1967) Kam vaprosa za vremenata v savremennija balgarski ezik. Balgarski ezik 17: 131-143. Slobin, Dan and Ayhan Aksu (1982) Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In: P. Hopper (ed.) Tense-aspect:Between semantics and pragmatics, 185-200.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stankov, Valentin (1967) Kategorii na indikativa v savremennija balgarski ezik. Balgarski ezik 17: 330-344. Stojanov, Stojan (1964/1993)Gramatika na bdlgarskija knizoven ezik. Sofija: Uni- versitetsko izdatelstvo. Suzuki, Tai (1997) Joodai nihongo no keri no imi. In: Z. Kawabata and Y. Nitta (eds.) Nihongo bunpoo. Taikei to hoohoo, 171-190.Hitsujishoboo. Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectificationin semantic change. Language 65-1:31-55. Tsonev, B. (1911) Opredeleni i neopredeleni formi v bdlgarskija ezik. Godisnikna Sofijskijauniversitet, 3-18. Weigand, Gustav (1923-24) The admirative in Bulgarian. The Slavonic review 2: 567-568. 38 Eleonora YOVKOVA-SHII

証拠性と感嘆性一ブルガリア語のl-分詞の意味的･機能的側面

エレオノラ･ヨフコバ･四位

(東京農工大学非常勤)

本論文は,ブルガリア語のl分詞を伴う述語の諸形式の意味･機能について論

じながら,l分詞の共通意味特徴の再定義を試みるものである.l分詞の働きの

中には,｢証拠性｣と｢感嘆性｣という異質な働きがある.一見,関係がないか

のように見えるこれらの働きは,共通の意味特徴によって関連付けることができ

る.本論文では,この意味特徴を｢発話時における話者の意識的関与｣,または

より広い意味で｢知識に関する話者の態度｣と定義付け,この概念は,出来事ま

たは発言に対する話者の現在(発話時)の意識的関与の状態という意味要素

(｢現在性｣)を含んでいると同時に,発話時以前の何らかの意識的状態(｢過去

性｣)を想定し,それを現在の意識的状態と対比させるという意味要素まで含意

することを示した.また,この概念に含まれている意味要素が,l分詞の原型で

ある｢現在完了形｣の基本的意味特徴に含まれている同様の意味要素と巧く合致

することを論じた.

本論文のもう一つの論点となっているのは,分詞のタイプ,すなわち定過去分

詞または半過去分詞が機能の分布を如何に特徴付けるかということである.定過

去分詞が現れる形式には,非モーダル及びモーダルな働きがある.一方,半過去

分詞が現れる形式はモーダルな働きのみを担っている.

(受理日 2002年5月9日最終原稿受理日 2004年7月17日)