Specimina Philologiae Slavicae

SPECIMINA PHILOLOGIAE SLAVICAE

Studies on evidentiality marking in West and South Slavic

Edited by Björn Wiemer

BAND 183 SPECIMINA PHILOLOGIAE SLAVICAE

Begründet von Olexa Horbatsch und Gerd Freidhof Herausgegeben von Peter Kosta, Beatrix Kreß, Holger Kuße und Franz Schindler Verlag Otto Sagner Verlag

! " #

$ % $&% $ & "'

(

) * * +' * , % -./. !

0 1 23 ,

( ) * * +' * , % -./.

456 "#$! $ %! "# - - 7 ' 7 - 8 #9 # :# : ;<<.. #.

= 456 $ > ! & & ?<@ " & 455 5A? ) 5A

B # C@? D5E? 6@ 4F5A B # C@? D5E? 6@ 4F44G H7 F . ;<< .7 F . <

- I # # JI $ > :.% , % -./. KKK.7 F .

L M : $ > !

I # ;

#. -. $ & B J N - "7 N F% + F $ K # : # 7 55G4 -

B # C@? D5E6 @G@445 .7 H F .

I O

J ; / B % ) - 7 ; -# F- 7% !1

:8 5A5F45 :8; ?AFFGGF6@FG :8 D 7E; ?AFFGGF6@?F 5

CONTENTS

Björn Wiemer Introduction 7-20

Jovan Čudomirović Verbs of speech and perception as markers of evidentiality in Serbian: paths of semantic extension and conventionalization 21-61

Ljudmila Popović (Людмила Попович) Эвиденциальные функции глагольных форм прошедшего времени (аориста, усеченного перфекта, перфекта) в сербском языке 63-88

Martina Ivanová Evidential adverbs of perception-based inference in Slovak 89-109

Anna Socka Polish sentence adverbs of hearsay: syntactic and textual distribution 111-137

Pelin Yıldız Zur Abgrenzung von Evidenzialität und epistemischer Modalität (anhand ausgewählter Beispiele aus dem Polnischen) 139-216

Björn Wiemer An outline of the development of Polish jakoby in 14th-16th century documents (based on dictionaries) 217-302

List of contributors and their addresses 303

Björn Wiemer

Introduction: Guidelines and synopsis of the contributions

The present volume contains a collection of articles that have a shared focus on the marking of evidential functions in some South and West Slavic languages. Apart from evidential extensions of modal auxiliaries,1 most of these languages do not exhibit any obvious tendency toward using grammatical forms as devices to indicate source of information. See, however, Popović’s contribution, which provides an interpret- tation of certain Serbian verb (sub)paradigms linked to the past domain in terms of evidential contrasts, which to some extent remind us of the known contrast of ‘[±] confirmative’ forms in Bulgarian and Macedonian (cf. Guentchéva 1996, Friedman 2003, among many other publications). These latter forms have been acknowledged as ‘evidential strategies’ by Aikhenvald (2004), though other means have been ex- cluded from her treatment of ‘evidentiality’ (resp. ‘evidential marking’). In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I will provide a brief clarification of terms before ex- ploring some of the recurrent phenomena touched upon in the contributions to this volume, and before detailing a summary of each contribution. Aikhenvald’s original (and widely cited) definition of evidentiality states: [1] “Evidentiality proper is understood as stating the existence of a source of evidence for some information; that includes stating that there is some evidence, and also specifying what type of evidence there is.” (Aikhenvald 2003: 1; cf. also Aikhenvald 2004: 3) This definition, at face value, captures a notional domain; in practice, Aikhenvald understands evidentiality in a much narrower sense, namely: as a grammatical category without, however, becoming very specific regarding what ‘grammatical’ means. After all, grammatical status is characterized by (usually tightly organized) paradigmatic subsystems. These include certain particles (if organized into systems of clitics with fixed positions in clearly definable and language-specific “slots”) and complementizers (which also take a fairly fixed slot at the border between two con- joined clauses); at least Aikhenvald mentions them in passing (e.g., Aikhenvald 2004: 120-122).2 The question is raised, then, as to how to treat the many different kinds of

1 See the most prominent case Pol. mieć (Weiss, w.y. and 2009: 136-139 as well as Holvoet 2012 for a slightly different treatment). 2 As far as I have been able to establish, Aikhenvald has not said much about the status of auxiliaries, but she does consider complex predicates with auxiliaries or copula verbs in some few cases 8 Björn Wiemer

‘function (or: syncategorematic) words’ that have been bones of contention in any attempt at setting up clines between grammatical and lexical units. As with grammaticalization research in general, one is often left with open questions when it comes to borderline cases (cf. Wiemer 2014 for principled deliberations). I will come back to these issues below. Many researchers have approached evidentiality from a notional point of view. A convincing justification for the treatment of evidentiality as a substance domain was given in Boye/Harder (2009). Obviously, it is publications like these that have recently led Aikhenvald to specify her conception of evidentiality in the following way: [2] “‘Evidentiality’ is grammaticalized marking of information source. (…) ‘evidentiality’ is a linguistic category whose real-life counterpart is information source.” (Aikhenvald 2014: 1f.) This makes things clearer, at least terminologically. I will continue using the term ‘evidentiality’ (‘evidential meaning’ and so on) in the broad, notional sense, but the term could be replaced by ‘(reference to) information source’, if this makes the termi- nology more convenient for readers. Admittedly, if we want to establish inventories of devices used to mark evidential functions, this task is not made easier by such an approach because we cannot rely on some preconceived notion of grammar (‘grammatical structure’ and so on), or at least on paradigm structure or tight syntagmatic patterns. Instead, we rely much more on a semantic foundation together with a functional analysis of the items in question against the background of the utterance which they modify. First of all, evidential markers (regardless of their grammatical or lexical status) are modifiers of propositions, not of states-of-affairs (SoAs). In a cognitive sense, SoAs are speakers’ stipulations about entities that can occur and be observed in the physico-temporal world, whereas propositions result from stipulations about entities that cannot be observed, as they do not take place in space and time; instead, they can be assessed as ‘true’ or ‘false’, and propositions can be modified with respect to information source (i.e. evidentially) or with respect to an epistemic commitment (i.e. in terms of ‘(un)- certainty’) of the speaker3 on this basis. Thus, propositional content can be conceived of as the operandum with which evidential markers function like operators.

(e.g., 2004: 69, 84) and acknowledges them as diachronic sources of evidentials proper (2004: 283f.). 3 Most briefly, propositions can be paraphrased this way: a proposition anchors a SoA in a world W and adds reference to a SoA so that it stipulates its existence (in W). For an elaborate justify- cation cf. Boye (2012: 187-198, 278-252) as well as Wiemer (this volume: §1.2.1). Note that, by saying that evidential (and epistemic) markers scope over propositions, I recognize that ‘scope’ Introduction 9

Continuing in this vein, it is pertinent to recall the criteria for establishing evidential markers that were already introduced some time ago by Anderson (1986: 274f.). He vaguely characterized evidentials as “a special grammatical phenomenon”, but his criteria have remained extremely useful. Here they are (in Anderson’s original wording): [3] Anderson’s (1986) criteria of evidentials [a] Evidentials show the kind of justification for a factual claim which is available to the person making that claim (...). [b] Evidentials are not themselves the main predication of the clause, but are rather a specification added to a factual claim ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE [i.e. the propositional content of the utterance; BW – emphasis in the original]. [c] Evidentials have the indication of evidence (...) as their primary meaning, not only as a pragmatic inference. [d] Morphologically, evidentials are inflections, clitics, or other free syntactic elements (not compounds or derivational forms). We can disregard the last criterion ([d]) since, in the material presented in this volume, we are only dealing with free lexemes and morphological (inflectional) paradigms. The other three criteria ([a-c]) are not related to the form of the items themselves, but rather to the meaning or, more broadly, to the function; more precisely: to functions operating on propositions. [a] directly relates to Aikhenvald’s definition in [1], in fact, it just paraphrases it. [c] is crucial because it excludes all kinds of expressions for which an evidential function arises only from the context and not as part of its conventionalized meaning. In this volume, this issue will, in varying ways, be addressed by Ivanová, Socka, and Wiemer. [b] is no less important as it specifies that an evidential marker can only be used as an additional modifier of a predicate-argument structure (with the corresponding proposition established by the actual utterance); it cannot occur by itself (unless for reasons of ellipsis) and is itself void of any arguments (in the usual sense of syntactic-semantic alignment). Another way of saying this would be to specify that evidentials never constitute phrasal heads (see also Figure 1 below). This point is essential, for instance, when it comes to determining whether a verb denoting some perceptual event, a cognitive attitude or a speech act, can be considered to have already developed into a distinct evidential marker, or whether it still functions as a predicate with its own (clausal or nominal) complements. This problem is touched upon in Čudomirović’s article included in this volume.

has to be understood as a semantic notion, not a syntactic one (Boye 2012: 253-257; Wiemer, this volume: §1.2.1; Wiemer/Socka, forthcoming: §2.1). 10 Björn Wiemer

There is a further point to be made about Anderson’s requirement [b]. Note that this criterion applies to lexical units like ‘function words’ as well, i.e. it is not restricted to narrowly defined ‘grammatical’ means. What is indisputable is that function words (complementizers, particles, etc.) are products of conventionalization in the sense that they are separate lexemes which have become part of the repertoire of ready-made expressions of a given language. Thus, an inventory of evidential markers must include exclusively conventionalized units. One can accept function words as grammatical units in the sense defined by Boye/ Harder (2009; 2012), namely: as units which are conventionally restricted to discur- sively secondary use; this implies that they can be neither addressed, nor focalized. This then includes sentence adverbs. Regardless of what decision is made about the lexical or grammatical status of certain classes of function words,4 some confusion has been caused by the apparently interchangeable use of the terms ‘sentence adverbs’ and ‘(evidential, epistemic) particles’ (usually subsumed as Modalpartikeln or Abtö- nungspartikeln in German linguistic literature). One may get the impression that these terms are often used synonymously. For instance, in this volume Socka uses the term ‘particle’, while Ivanová speaks of ‘sentence adverbs’, although upon closer reflect- ion, one notices that, actually, both authors analyze units which exhibit no consider- able differences in syntactic behavior. I am not going to resolve this apparent problem here, although I am not sure whether it is only of a terminological nature, or whether we should just dismiss one of the terms in favor of the other. Most of the articles in this volume have emerged in some way or other from the project Funktionsweisen und Struktur evidenzieller Markierungen im Slavischen (integrative Theorie mit Aufbau einer Datenbasis), which was financed by the German Science Foundation (DFG) from April 2010 to March 2013. This project mainly aimed to test foundations of a more unified description of lexical markers of evidential functions. In a sense, the goal of the project consisted in finding out how the lexicography of evidential marking should be pursued. The primary object was Slavic languages; apart from Russian, we worked most systematically on Bulgarian, Croat- ian, Polish and Slovak. 5 A unified description implied not only a refinement of

4 For a discussion of the consequences of Boye & Harder’s approach to grammaticalization cf. Wiemer (2014: 455-457). 5 Work in this project was conducted, first and foremost, by Veronika Kampf; she also devoted much energy into the empirical foundation of the description of Bulgarian, her native tongue. Karla Johanna Hilsen, Jasmin Neumann, Ivana Vrdoljak and Pelin Yıldız worked as student assistants. My heartfelt thanks to all of them for their reliable support, genuine interest and their enthusiasm. Below I have added a list of articles which have been produced directly from this project. Introduction 11 existing taxonomies of evidential functions, such as those found in Plungian (2001) and Aikhenvald (2004), and in line with independent though converging distinctions made by Jakovleva (1994) on Russian and by Squartini (2008) regarding Italian and French data, but also a delimitation of evidential functions proper from neighboring domains, such as quotation and reformulation (on which cf. Wiemer/Kampf 2013), or hedging (not to speak of epistemic modality). However, first and foremost, the lexicography of evidential marking – and the understanding of evidentiality as a notional domain (= information source) – has to rest on some conception of a lexicon—grammar cline. The general outline and preconditions of such a conception were presented in Wiemer/Stathi (2010), and its application was sketched for hearsay (= reportive) marking in Wiemer (2010). Figure 1 gives a general illustration of the cline and the expression types along it.

Figure 1: Types of evidential markers on a morphosyntactic cline

The basic assumptions inherent to this conception are in harmony with Anderson’s criteria referred to above, and the authors of this collective volume have indeed kept to them as closely as possible. Needless to say, however, many issues remain insuf- ficiently understood and further issues have surfaced during our work. This volume contains six contributions dealing with Serbian, Slovak or Polish (some- times with a comparative view regarding other Slavic languages). All of them, except the contribution by Wiemer, restrict themselves to the contemporary language perspective, and all but the article by Popović are concerned with lexical markers of evidential functions (as delimited above). Wiemer takes a diachronic perspective, and Popović casts new light on possible evidential interpretations of past tenses (and their functional contrasts) in modern Serbian. The sequence of papers has been arranged so that the two articles on Serbian material are addressed first before turning to West 12 Björn Wiemer

Slavic. Within the latter, Slovak precedes Polish, and regarding the papers dealing with Polish, diachrony comes after synchrony. In his article Verbs of speech and perception as markers of evidentiality in Serbian: paths of semantic extension and conventionalization, Jovan Čudomirović analyzes the most general Serbian verbs of visual and acoustic perception. His basic issue is whether constructions with these verbs may have conventionalized (to different de- grees) as extensions into evidential and epistemic domains. Beside patterns of affixation and compounding, important factors conditioning evidential-epistemic extensions reside in the degree of syntactic detachment (parentheticalization) and the weak- ening of reference to specific human cognizers (impersonalization). The author makes inquiries into motivations rooted in the lexical semantics of these verbs and also considers how constructional frames might have contributed to such meaning shifts. While accounting for well-known studies like Viberg (1984) and Gisborne (2010), Čudomirović emphasizes the important role of cognitive contiguity (metonymy) between perception and inference. Remarkably, there seems to be a split between constructions with the basic verb of passive visual perception (videti ‘see’), on the one hand, and constructions with verbs for which the stimulus is coded as a nominatival subject, on the other: constructions with videti tend toward marking inferences with strong epistemic commitment, whereas the latter prove to be apt at marking inferences with weak epistemic commitment instead. The article Evidential Meanings of Past Tenses (Aorist, Truncated Perfect, Perfect) in Serbian, written in Russian by Ljudmila Popović, addresses the relationship between different past tenses based on the fact that standard Serbian (as well as more conservative varieties of Croatian) still has a rather intact opposition of tense paradigms built on the l-participle6 and the aorist inherited from Common Slavic is still actively used in certain registers by Serbian speakers. There are two paradigmatic contrasts to be accounted for: on the one hand, an opposition between the perfect (based on the l-participle) and the aorist and, on the other hand, an opposition between a compound form consisting of the l-participle and an auxiliary (present tense forms of the BE-verb). The latter contrast actually arises within the perfect paradigm, and scholars have long been discussing the meaning difference between the “full form” of this compound paradigm (with the BE-auxiliary) and the so-called ‘truncated perfect’ (without the BE-auxiliary). Popović builds on this tradition but correctly re-

6 In many varieties of the štokavian dialect continuum, the former perfect has been developing into a marker of general past; cf. Kunzmann-Müller (21999: 54), Barić et al. (42005: 412) as for Croat- ian and the detailed discussion on Serbian in Piper et al. (2005: 391-395). This tendency becomes more pronounced, the further one moves into the northwestern part of this territory (cf. Breu 1994: 56f. for a more general areal context). Introduction 13 marks that observations made regarding the aforementioned contrasts (and other morphological distinctions of the past domain) in Serbian have never been examined with respect to evidentiality. She also studies the contrasts conditioned by these paradigmatic choices from a discourse perspective. Her conclusions are partially drawn on the basis of a questionnaire survey she conducted to check predictions formulated from a reinterpretation of analyses made hitherto of the mentioned oppositions in verb morphology. Popović also supplies some brief comparisons with similar oppositions in Macedonian and Bulgarian. Martina Ivanová is the first author to provide results from a more systematic and corpus-based investigation into the evidential-epistemic interface of Slovak adverbs. Her article on Evidential adverbs of perception-based inference in Slovak takes up the same notional domains as that of Čudomirović (see above), although the syntactic class of expressions undergoing semantic shifts from perception to inferences differs. Ivanová elaborates on the relation between manner and sentence adverbs, both in terms of distributional differences and the reasons for a productive functional deri- vation of sentence from manner adverbs. More particularly, she takes subtle meaning alternations into consideration that are associated with the varying position of the investigated adverbs in the clause they modify (initial, mid, final position) and in collocation with epistemic particles. Moreover, she examines the notorious issue of how evidential meaning components can be distinguished from epistemic ones. With respect to the latter issue, she takes recourse to Levinson’s (1995) notion of Generalized Conversational Implicatures (on this topic cf. also Levinson 2000 and the treatment in Wiemer/Socka, forthcoming). In accordance with this, she provides a thorough check of the degree of context-dependence in meaning components, which proves to vary among the analyzed adverbs. Ivanová, furthermore, pays special attention to functional differentiation on a more fine-grained level of a taxonomy of evidential functions, in particular to a distinction between circumstantial and generic evidential functions in terms of Squartini (2008). In connection with this, she also takes into consideration the observation that sentence adverbs, whose meaning potential is bound to more specific evidential functions, appear to be more likely to send epistemic overtones to the background while less specific indications of the source of knowledge make epistemic components more dominant. These observations re- semble findings formulated in Wiemer/Kampf (2012). Anna Socka’s study, Polish Particles of Hearsay: Syntactic and Textual Distri- bution, shares the concern about the semantics-pragmatics interface with the previous paper and, in actual fact, deals with the same syntactic class of expressions. Socka’s work differs from Ivanová’s in that its focus is not on the inferential, but rather the reportative subdomain of evidentiality (or ‘information source’). The distinction 14 Björn Wiemer between sentence adverbs and particles has remained a nagging issue (see above), which is not made into a topic itself. Rather, Socka is interested in the distributional properties of the four most prominent reportative lexemes (‘function words’) in modern Polish: podobno, jakoby, rzekomo, and ponoć. Their distribution is described on the basis of systematic corpus queries from both a syntactic point of view and a discourse perspective. Socka’s analysis uses Neo-Gricean terms, and a point particularly worth attention is that a component of distance (‘I cannot access the situation about which it is said: P’) has to be ascribed a slightly different status for each of the analyzed units. Thereby, the author makes a valuable contribution both to the lexicography of evidential markers and also to the operationalization of a specific type of ‘distance’-concept, which would otherwise remain too intuitive and vague (cf. the recent brief overview by Sonnenhauser/Meermann 2015). In fact, Socka’s proposal helps objectify the notion of distance in the domain of propositional modifiers. In her study On delimiting evidentiality from epistemic modality (with selected examples from Polish), written in German, Pelin Yıldız also takes up “evergreen” issues from the complex relationship between epistemic modality and evidentiality, but she gives them an original and rather unorthodox twist. In a very consistent and subtle way, she asks what endows a linguistic expression with an epistemic meaning component, and she investigates this question for both the reportative and the inferential subdomain of evidentiality. Contrary to what most researchers have assumed, Yıldız does not maintain that a speaker makes an epistemic assessment always and eo ipso when judging based on his/her knowledge (or its absence), or certainty regarding some propositional content (P). In particular, according to Yıldız, ‘I know that P’ and ‘I know that not P’ (or: P vs. P), as the two extreme values assumed for epistemic scales,7 do not by themselves constitute epistemic assessments. Instead, Yıldız claims that uncertainty – i.e. lack of knowledge regarding whether P is true or not (or: ‘I do not know if P or P’) – is simply a precondition for an epistemic assessment to arise, however, it must not be identified with such an assessment. Under this perspective, ‘ignorance of knowledge’ comes close to an agnostic stance of the speaker toward P, as it was argued for, e.g., in Wiemer (2006) and subsequent publications. Apart from her shrewd conceptual observations, Yıldız states the question of how epistemic vis-à-vis evidential components of a given unit might, in principle, be diagnosed and told apart in an objectifiable way. She rightly criticizes that looking

7 Cf., for instance, Krause (2007: 51-56). By the same token, many typologists and scholars working on language philosophy have (tacitly or explicitly) accepted ‘I know that P’ and ‘I know that not P’ as extreme poles of epistemic scales, or they have equated knowledge with certainty; for a critical survey over both traditions cf. Boye (2012: 20-31, 43-47). Introduction 15 for transparent and non-circular procedures in the vast research literature that would allow for an empirical falsification of claims about such components would be a hard job. In particular, this concerns the question of whether epistemic overtones ascribed to various evidential markers can be considered as stable components of their meaning. In contrast to, e.g., Ivanová and Socka (see above), Yıldız does not concentrate on the semantics-pragmatics interface (e.g., the nature of implicatures) as such, but rather provides a painstaking analysis and criticism of a few tests which have been applied by different scholars8 in order to show whether some unit (with some kind of evidential meaning potential) can be qualified as an epistemic marker as well (or even in the first place). Yıldız’ contribution, thus, provides some noteworthy methodlo- gical insights, too. The author checks her findings against some selected reportative and inferential items from Polish, taken (as with Socka, see above) from the Polish National Corpus (NKJP, http://www.nkjp.pl/) and proposes procedures with which such “natural” examples might be submitted to systematic manipulation. These procedures are similar to methods successfully applied in Formal Semantics (cf., for instance, Danielewiczowa 2002 or Żabowska 2008) but do not share all their assumptions regarding the relation between knowledge, epistemic assessment and reference to the source of information. Yıldız’ findings concerning the reportative lexemes podobno, jakoby and rzekomo are fairly compatible with the results of Socka’s analysis of the same units (see above). As a side effect, she shows that the ‘one- commitment-per-clause’-assumption (Nuyts 2009) does not hold true in the face of the empirical facts of natural discourse, although effects of “evidential concord” (analogical to ‘epistemic concord’) certainly obtain. The study named An outline of the development of Polish jakoby in 14th-16th century documents (based on dictionaries) by Björn Wiemer is the only contribution within this volume which takes a decidedly diachronic focus. Actually, it is the first attempt to come to terms with available data from the history of Polish in order to reconstruct the developmental steps through which the comparison marker jakoby acquired epistemic and evidential functions. Being the result of univerbation from a universal Slavic comparison marker jako ‘as, like’ with the “conjunctive-optative particle” by (which, in turn, had arisen as a paradigmatically isolated relic of the 3SG-aorist form of byti ‘be’), jakoby already exhibited syntactically extremely versatile behavior by the end of 14th century, inasmuch as it could modify virtually any sort of constituent. This, together with a lack of or only vague structural distinction between juxtapose- tion and subordination, led to jakoby’s status as a heterosemic unit, which has persist- ed (though with changes of salient usage types) into contemporary Polish: it started

8 Most attention is paid to the procedures exemplified in Stępień (2008; 2010a), cf. also Stępień (2010b). 16 Björn Wiemer being used not only as a particle, but also as a conjunction and complementizer.9 As a complementizer, jakoby found itself in syntactic environments – namely, clause- initially after verbs denoting acts (or states) of cognition or speech acts – in which it, as it were, “inherited” the epistemic or, later, reportative meaning from a central meaning component of such verbs: jakoby started introducing clauses that were then reinterpreted as clausal complements of verbs in immediately preceding clauses. Concentrating on the earliest centuries documented by comprehensive dictionaries, the investigation comprises the periods until the end of the 16th century. By that time, jakoby still very rarely occurred in the context of verbs, or nouns, that were related to speech events; much larger percentages of tokens fall into the original domain of irreal, or imaginative, comparison and the epistemic domain. Apart from this, jakoby functioned as a particle and conjunction for final clauses and with directive speech acts (e.g., after volitional verbs). Moreover, it quite often appeared in dependent clauses containing modal auxiliaries or chcieć ‘want’. Simultaneously, jakoby was only rarely used as an adnominal connective (relativizer). By contrast, in the modern language jakoby is altogether absent in deontic contexts and with directive speech acts, while the frequency of its use as a relativizer has grown, in fact to an extent that this syntactic function proves to be the most salient one now. In this sense, a consi- derable redistribution of syntactic functions and of the range of jakoby’s meaning potential has taken place after the end of the investigated period, at which its inferential function still only occasionally appeared and reportative usage was practically absent. Since this study is exploratory, the author deliberately tries to provide the most comprehensive picture possible of the parallel changes occurring both with jakoby’s syntactic distribution and its meaning potential by the end of the 16th century. He also compares both the syntactic and the functional (semantic) aspect of its evolution with its behavior and status in contemporary Polish. Since we are dealing with diachronic and (as far as the linguistic context is concerned) rather deficient data sources, no reliable stance can be assumed with respect to the question of stable vs. contextually inferred meaning components (or, otherwise, a distinction between established, coded meaning and functional compatibility with some semantic components of the imme- diate linguistic contexts). The author, furthermore, inquires into the conditions under which one can determine that clauses modified by jakoby (in any of its syntactic functions) carry propositional content (against a state-of-affairs). In general, only a few properties indicative of propositional markers can be found, although diverse analy- tical problems in testing such properties, especially in diachronically quite remote periods, have to be accounted for here.

9 As a conjunction, it disappeared somewhere between the end of the investigated period and the modern period. Introduction 17

The articles by Jovan Čudomirović, Martina Ivanová and Anna Socka are a direct outcome of their collaboration with the aforementioned DFG-project. Pelin Yıldız’ contribution is a slightly revised version of her Master Thesis (defended in 2011 and awarded a prize for outstanding diploma works in 2012 by the Faculty of Philosophy and Philology of Mainz University). The papers by Ljudmila Popović and Björn Wiemer have been written especially for this volume. The volume has been financed by the German Science Foundation in connection with the aforementioned project; this support is hereby gratefully acknowledged. I also sincerely appreciate help of Karla Johanna Hilsen, Ljudmila Radchankava and, above all, Julia Schmidt, who have worked on formatting and checking lots of editorial details. Finally, I want to thank Holger Kuße for having accepted this collection of papers for the Specimina- series in Sagner as well as for his and Cindy Bönhardt’s (Sagner) smooth cooperation while this volume was being prepared.

References Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2003): Evidentiality in typological perspective. In: Aikhenvald, Ale- xandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.): Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benja- mins, 1-32. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004): Evidentiality. Oxford etc.: Oxford U.P. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2014): The grammar of knowledge: a cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. In: Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.): The Grammar of Knowledge: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford etc.: Oxford U.P., 1- 51. Anderson, Lloyd B. (1986): Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: Typologically Regular Asymmetries. In: Chafe, William & Johanna Nichols (eds.): Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publ., 273-312. Barić, Eugenija, Mijo Lončarić, Dragica Malić, Slavko Pavešić, Mirko Peti, Vesna Zečević, Marija Znika (42005): Hrvatska gramatika. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Boye, Kasper (2012): Epistemic meaning (A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder (2009): Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16, 9-43. Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder (2012): A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88, 1–44. Breu, Walter (1994): Der Faktor Sprachkontakt in einer dynamischen Typologie des Slavischen. In: Mehlig, Hans-Robert (ed.): Slavistische Linguistik 1993. München: Sagner, 41-64. Danielewiczowa, Magdalena (2002): Wiedza i niewiedza (Studium polskich czasowników episte- micznych). Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski, Katedra Lingwistyki formalnej. 18 Björn Wiemer

Friedman, Victor A. (2003): Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian. In: Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.): Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 189–218. Gisborne, Nikolas (2010): The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford etc.: Oxford U.P. Guentchéva, Zlatka (1996): Le médiatif en bulgare. In: Guentchéva, Zlatka (ed.): L’énonciation médiatisée. Leuven: Peeters, 47-70. Holvoet, Axel (2012): Polish mieć and the semantic map of interpretive deontics. Zeitschrift für Sla- wistik 57-2, 129-146. Jakovleva, Ekaterina S. (1994): Fragmenty russkoj jazykovoj kartiny mira (modeli prostranstva, vre- meni i vosprijatija). Moskva: Gnozis. Krause, Marion (2007): Epistemische Modalität. Zur Interaktion lexikalischer und prosodischer Marker (Dargestellt am Beispiel des Russischen und des Bosnisch-Kroatisch-Serbischen). Wies- baden: Harrassowitz. Kunzmann-Müller, Barbara (21999): Grammatikhandbuch des Kroatischen (unter Einschluß des Serbischen). Frankfurt/M. etc.: Lang. Levinson, Stephen C. (1995): Interactional Bias in Human Thinking. In: Goody, Esther N. (ed.): Social Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 221-260. Levinson, Stephen C. (2000): Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Nuyts, Jan (2009): The ‘one-commitment-per-clause’ principle and the cognitive status of qualifi- cational categories. Linguistics 47-1, 141-171. Plungian, Vladimir A. (2001): The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 349-357. Piper, Predrag, Ivana Antonić, Vladislava Ružić, Sreto Tanasić, Ljudmila Popović & Branko Tošović (2005): Sintaksa savremenoga srpskog jezika. Prosta rečenica. (U redakciji Milke Ivić). Beograd: Beogradska knjiga / Matica srpska. Sonnenhauser, Barbara & Anastasia Meermann (2015): Introduction. Distance in language: grounding a metaphor. In: Sonnenhauser, Barbara & Anastasia Meermann (eds.): Distance in language: Grounding a metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 1-4. Squartini, Mario (2008): Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian. Linguistics 46- 5, 917-947. Stępień, Marzena (2008): O wzajemnym przenikaniu się ewidencjalności i modalności (na przy- kładzie wybranych polskich czasowników i wyrażeń funkcyjnych). In: Wiemer, Björn & Vladimir A. Plungjan (eds.): Lexikalische Evidenzialitäts-Marker in slavischen Sprachen. München, Wien: Sagner, 313-333. (= Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 72.) Stępień, Marzena (2010a): Mówienie i prawda. O czasownikowych wykładnikach wiedzy niezweryfi- kowanej przez mówiącego. Warszawa: Wydział Polonistyki UW. Stępień, Marzena (2010b): Zniewolone partykuły. Wyrażenia funkcyjne jako narzędzia w semantyce składnikowej. Linguistica Copernicana 2-4, 121-138. Viberg, Åke (1984): The verbs of perception: A typological study. In: Butterworth, Brian, Bernard Comrie & Östen Dahl (eds.): Explanations for language universals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 123–162. Introduction 19

Weiss, Daniel (w.y.): Semantyka konstrukcji ‘mieć + beokolicznik’. Próba rozstrzygnięcia polisemii. Hamburg: unpubl. ms. Weiss, Daniel (2009): Mögliche Argumentationen zum Nachweis von Calques am Beispiel der polnischen Modalverben. In: Scholze, Lenka & Björn Wiemer (eds.): Von Zuständen, Dynamik und Veränderung bei Pygmäen und Giganten (Festschrift für Walter Breu zu seinem 60. Geburtstag). Bochum: Brockmeyer, 129-153. (= Diversitas Linguarum 25.) Wiemer, Björn (2006): Particles, parentheticals, conjunctions and prepositions as evidentiality markers in contemporary Polish (A first exploratory study). Studies in Polish Linguistics 3, 5-67. Wiemer, Björn (2010): Hearsay in European languages: toward an integrative account of grammatical and lexical marking. In: Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova (eds.): Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 59-129. Wiemer, Björn (2014): Quo vadis grammaticalization theory?, or: Why complex language change is like words. In: von Mengden, Ferdinand & Horst Simon (eds.): What is it then, this Grammatica- lization? 425-467. (= Special issue Folia Linguistica 48/2.) Wiemer, Björn & Katerina Stathi (2010): Introduction: The database of evidential markers in Euro- pean languages. A bird’s eye view of the conception of the database (the template and problems hidden beneath it). In: Wiemer, Björn & Katerina Stathi (eds.): Database on evidentiality markers in European languages. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 290-307. (= Special issue STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 63-4.) Żabowska, Magdalena (2008): Polskie wyrażenia ewidencjalne a partykuły epistemiczne. In: Wie- mer, Björn & Vladimir A. Plungjan (eds.): Lexikalische Evidenzialitätsmarker im Slavischen. München, Wien: Sagner, 377-393. (= Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 72.)

Papers published or submitted in connection with the DFG-project Ivanová, Martina (2014a): Evidentiality and temporal perspective of the utterance. In: Lewan- dowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara & Krzysztof Kosecki (eds.): Time and temporality in language and human experience. Frankfurt/M. etc.: Lang, 147-162. (= Łódź Studies in Language 32.) Ivanová, Martina (2014b): Kognitívno-funkčné aspekty vyjadrovania postojov v slovenčine. In: Kesselová, Jana, Mária Imrichová & Martin Ološtiak (eds.): Registre jazyka a jazykovedy (I): na počesť Daniely Slančovej. Prešov: Filozofická fakulta Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove, 95-101. Ivanová, Martina, Veronika Kampf & Björn Wiemer (in prep.): Types of sentence adverbs and predicatives in Slovak and Bulgarian (a contrastive study). Socka, Anna (2010): Reportative Partikeln in kontrastiver Sicht (Polnisch – Deutsch). In: Kątny, Andrzej & Anna Socka (eds.): Modalität und Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht. Frankfurt/M. etc.: Lang, 239-264. (= Danziger Beiträge zur Germanistik 30.) Socka, Anna (2011): Evidentialität und Epistemizität in der Bedeutung reportativer Satzadverbien im Polnischen und Deutschen. In: Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova (eds.): Modalität und Evidentialität / Modality and Evidentiality. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 49-68. (= FOKUS – Linguistisch-Philologische Studien 37.) Socka, Anna (2013): Skopus reportativer Ausdrücke in Komplementsätzen im Deutschen und Polni- schen. In: Abraham, Werner & Elisabeth Leiss (eds.): Funktionen von Modalität. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 157-186. (= Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen.) 20 Björn Wiemer

Socka, Anna (2014a): Polskie partykuły reportatywne w zdaniu i w tekście. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyż- szej Szkoły Języków Obcych w Świeciu 3, 251-264. Socka, Anna (2014b): Das scheint mein Cousin zu sein – Zur verbalen Markierung der inferentiellen Bedeutung im Deutschen und Polnischen. Studia Germanica Gedanensia 31, 47-63. Wiemer, Björn & Ivana Vrdoljak (2011a): Evidenzielle Partikeln vs. Satzadverbien im Serbisch- Kroatischen und Slovenischen. (Teil I. Ein Forschungsbericht). Die Welt der Slaven LVI-1, 100- 130. Wiemer, Björn & Ivana Vrdoljak (2011b): Evidenzielle Partikeln vs. Satzadverbien im Serbisch- Kroatischen und Slovenischen. (Teil II. Auswertung eines Forschungsberichts). Die Welt der Slaven LVI-2, 360-383. Wiemer, Björn & Veronika Kampf (2011a): Inventarisierung und Analyse lexikalischer Evidenzi- alitätsmarker des Bulgarischen: Adverbien, Partikeln und Prädikative (I). Zeitschrift für Balka- nologie 47-1, 46-76. Wiemer, Björn & Veronika Kampf (2011b): Inventarisierung und Analyse lexikalischer Evidenzi- alitätsmarker des Bulgarischen: Adverbien, Partikeln und Prädikative (II). Zeitschrift für Balka- nologie 47-2, 182-201. Wiemer, Björn & Veronika Kampf (2012): On conditions instantiating tip effects of epistemic and evidential meanings in Bulgarian. Slověne 2, 5-38. Wiemer, Björn & Veronika Kampf (2013): Gesten und Mimik als semiotische Substitute für Sprech- akte oder umgekehrt? Zur speziellen Verwendung einiger Reformulierungsmarker im Bulgari- schen. Sǎpostavitelno ezikoznanie 28 (2-3), 153-191. (Special issue Evidentiality.) Wiemer, Björn & Anna Socka (forthcoming): How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? In: Lee, Chungmin & Jinho Park (eds.): Evidentials and Modals. Brill. (= Current Research in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface.) Jovan Čudomirović

Verbs of perception and speech as sources of evidential markers in Serbian: paths of semantic extension and grammatical conventionalization*

Abstract Although Serbian lacks morphological markers of evidentiality, there are different lexical markers, developed mainly from verbs of perception and verbs of speech. We show that constructions with the basic verb of visual perception videti ‘see’ develop into inferential evidentials which tend to imply strong epistemic commitment, while those based on verbs of visual perception that code the stimulus as nominatival subject (izgledati ‘look, seem’, činiti se ‘seem’, delovati ‘look, seem’) show extensions into inferential evidentials with implied uncertainty. Metonymical concept- ualization of knowledge as vision allows inferential markers to indicate both perceptually and non- perceptually based inference, regardless of their etymology. As for grammatical manners of conventionalization, beside word-formational methods like affixation and compounding, another path is the evidential specialization of verb forms through impersonalization and syntactic detachment. These processes lead to deverbal units which do not always fully correspond to Anderson’s (1986) classical conditions of what should be considered as an evidential marker, and which occupy different positions on lexicon‒grammar and semantics‒pragmatics clines.

Glagoli percepcije i govorenja kao izvori markera evidencijalnosti u srpskom: putevi semantič- kog proširenja i gramatičke konvencionalizacije Rezime Iako srpski nema morfološke markere evidencijalnosti, u njemu postoje različiti markeri dobijeni uglavnom od glagola percepcije i govorenja. U ovom radu pokazujemo da glagoli percepcije tipa videti (oni kod kojih percepcija podrazumeva pasivnost subjekta) služe kao izvor markera inferencijalne evidencijalnosti koji podrazumevaju sigurnost, izvesnost, dok su glagoli percepcije tipa izgledati (oni kod kojih subjekat upućuje na predmet percepcije, a ne na onoga koji opaža) izvor markera inferencijalne evidencijalnosti koji podrazumevaju nesigurnost. Metonimijska konceptualiza- cija znanja kao viđenja omogućava evidencijalnim markerima (bez obzira na njihovu etimologiju) da označe i perceptivno i neperceptivno zasnovano zaključivanje. Kad je reč o gramatičkim sredst- vima kojima se markeri evidencijalnosti konvencionalizuju, na jednoj strani su tvorbena sredstva poput afiksacije i slaganja, a na drugoj sintaksička ‒ impersonalizacija (redukcija argumentske struk- ture) i sintaksičko izdvajanje (parentetička upotreba) ‒ kojima se dobijaju deverbativne jedinice koje ne zadovoljavaju sve Andersonove (1986) uslove da se nazovu evidencijalnim markerima i zauzi- maju različite pozicije na leksičko-gramatičkom i semantičko-pragmatičkom kontinuumu. Jovan Čudomirović

* This paper is the result of the author’s collaboration on the project of evidentiality markings in Slavic languages carried out by the University of Mainz. The author is grateful to all the partici- pants of the workshop on evidentiality held at the University of Mainz on June 9‒10th 2011, especially to Björn Wiemer, Tena Gnjatović, Daniela Katunar, Ivana Vrdoljak, and Elena Petroska for the inspiring discussions, which have surely contributed to the author’s understanding of different issues concerning evidentiality marking in South-Slavic languages. Björn Wiemer, as the editor of this volume, has additionally contributed to the quality of this paper by many valuable com- ments and suggestions. The author is also thankful to Mirjana Mirić, who did a lot to make the English translation of the Serbian examples more precise and idiomatic. 22 Jovan Čudomirović

Keywords: evidentiality; epistemic modality; verbs of perception; verbs of speech; particles; parenthetical usage; metonymy; Serbian.

1. Preliminary remarks Discussing the origins of evidentials, Aikhenvald (2004: 271) identifies verbs of perception and verbs of speech as two main classes of verbs which can serve as sources of evidentials. Although Serbian lacks evidential markers in the sense in which Aikhenvald understands them (i.e. there is no grammatical (= morphological) evidentiality), there are various units or constructions that could be labeled as evidentials if we conceive of evidentiality in a broader sense ‒ as a cognitive, conceptual domain, and not just a morphological category. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the ways in which Serbian verbs of perception and speech serve as lexical sources of evidential markers. The structure of the paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we make necessary terminological clarifications and specify the methodology, and then briefly review existing studies of evidentiality in Serbian. In section 3, we analyze the ways in which verbs of perception serve as sources of evidential markers in Serbian; in section 4 we do the same for the verbs of speech. Finally, in section 5, we will summarize the findings and try to identify main paths of extension.

2. Introduction In our research, we rely not only on well-known monographs and collections such as Aikhenvald (2004) or Chafe/Nichols (1986), but also on the results of more language- specific studies such as Gnjatović/Matasović (2010), Wiemer/Vrdoljak (2011a; 2011b) or Popović (2010). Before presenting the main results of these studies (cf. section 2.3), we will address the issue of the object language of our study.

2.1. Data Language-specific works, like those mentioned above, use different labels for the linguistic material they examine: Gnjatović/Matasović (2010) is about Croatian (hrvatski), Wiemer/Vrdoljak about Serbian-Croatian (Serbisch-Kroatisch) (and Slo- venian) and Popović (2010) about Serbian (srpski) ‒ which is the consequence of the fact that, starting from the first half of the 19th century, two separate standards (Serbian and Croatian) have been established in the west South Slavic area on the common “neoštokavian” dialectal basis. For the sake of linguistic description, it was Verbs of perception and speech as sources of evidential markers in Serbian 23 and still is justifiable to take into account all the results relevant for the idiom(s) these standards are based on. We will, however, focus on Serbian in the sense that our own data consists (mostly) of the examples from the electronic corpus of standard Serbian (Elektronski korpus savremenog srpskog jezika – EKSJ), which is being developed at the Faculty of Mathematics of the University of Belgrade.

2.2. Scope of research and core theoretical and methodological distinctions We seek to identify semantic paths and grammatical means through which lexical markers of evidentiality ‒ verb forms, particles, adverbs etc. ‒ are developed from verbs of perception and speech. Therefore, we will not examine syntactic evidential strategies or other means of linguistic coding of the source of knowledge. In establishing what qualifies as an evidential marker we will use the basic criteria for defining evidential markers given by Anderson (1986), namely that evidentials: (a) “show the justification for a factual claim which is available to the person making that claim”; (b) should not express “the central factual claim”, “the main predication of the clause”, “but rather a specification of the factual claim: (1) Marija i Nikola su mi upravo Marija and Nikola be-AUX.PRS.3PL 1SG.DAT just kazali da u Novom Sadu pada kiša. tell-APART.PLM COMP in Novi Sad fall-PRS.3SG rain. ‘Marija and Nikola have just told me that it’s raining in Novi Sad.’ (2) U Novom Sadu, kažu, pada kiša. in Novi Sad tell-PRS.3PL fall-PRS.3SG rain.NOM ‘It is raining in Novi Sad, they say.’ In (1), there is a verb of speech with full argument structure (speaker(s), recipient, clausal complement) denoting an act of telling something to someone, while in (2), a specific (generalized) form of the verb is used parenthetically and without arguments to indicate reportive evidentiality ‒ while the former is an example of a typical verb of speech, the latter could be viewed as an evidential marker with verb kazati as its lexical source. Apart from the conditions (a-c), Anderson restricted evidentials to (d) “inflections, clitics and other free syntactic elements (not compounds or derivational forms)”, i.e. basically as grammatical units. But if we conceive evidentiality not only as grammatical, but, more broadly, as a cognitive/conceptual domain, then independent lexical units should also be taken into consideration, as argued by Wiemer (2010: 62‒63). 24 Jovan Čudomirović

Furthermore, all of Anderson’s criteria except (a) have recently been challenged by Boye and Harder (2009) who argue that the question of what unifies the (conceptual) category of evidentiality should not be mixed up with distinctions between lexical and grammatical coding, semantic and pragmatic meaning, or primary and secondary information, i.e. our understanding of evidentiality as a conceptual domain should not depend on our understanding of these theoretical distinctions. They also show that distinctions between lexical and grammatical coding and those between primary and secondary information are related in such a way that ‘coding secondary information’ could be claimed to be the key property that “unites the cluster of features that are traditionally associated with grammatical elements” (Boye/Harder 2009: 37). ‘Coded secondariness’ can be tested in terms of addressability: if a unit conveys secondary information, it cannot be addressed: e.g. in Smith died only Smith and died can be addressed by asking Really?, but not the suffix -ed, which is undoubtedly grammatical (cf. Boye/Harder 2009: 31). So although we are basing our analysis on three out of four of Anderson’s conditions (because we intend to identify units that not only have an evidential meaning, but also are conventionalized means of expressing such meaning), we will also use Boye and Harder’s addressability test to check whether different markers should be treated as lexical or as grammatical ones. When identifying different evidential functions, we will follow the classification established by Willett (1988). That is, we will make a distinction between direct and indirect evidentiality, depending on whether the speaker is the witness of the situation he presents (direct) or he only infers about it on the basis of some accessible evidence (indirect, inferential) or the reports of others (indirect, reportive). As for inferential evidentiality, we will follow Wiemer (2006: 11) and distinguish between inferences based on perception and purely deductive reasoning. Our analysis will mainly rely on a general terminological inventory of linguistic description, but we will also occasionally refer to the theory of conceptual metaphor/ metonymy (Lakoff/Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1987). As for the semantics of perception verbs, we will use the terminological distinction introduced by Gisborne (2010), i.e. we will distinguish between a “hear-class” (units with an experiencer subject, such as videti ‘see’ or čuti ‘look’), a “listen-class” (with an active subject, like gledati ‘look’) and a “sound-class” among perception verbs (with the perceptual stimulus as subject, like izgledati ‘look, seem’ or zvučati ‘sound’), which is only a different (and, in our opinion, slightly more practical) label- ing of Viberg’s (1984) “general components” for structuring the semantic field of perception. Verbs of perception and speech as sources of evidential markers in Serbian 25

2.3. Previous studies of evidentiality in Serbian/Croatian Trbojević Milošević (2004: 168) was, as far as we know, the first to identify some units in Serbian as evidential. In her study on epistemic modality in English and Ser- bian she refers to the verbs izgledati ‘look, seem’ and činiti se ‘seem’ as “evidential verbs”. Popović (2010) is a contrastive study of evidentiality in Serbian and Ukrain- ian. It identified numerous lexical and syntactical means of expressing evidentiality in Serbian, although without any systematic differentiation based on clear-cut criteria. Gnjatović and Matasović (2010) have identified and described syntactic evidential strategies in Croatian, finding that certain subject-to-subject and subject-to-object raising constructions, as well as the choice of complementizer with verbs of perception such as videti ‘see’ and čuti ‘hear’, are used to distinguish between direct and indirect evidentiality. Finally, Wiemer and Vrdoljak (2011a; 2011b) have established a systematic inventory of evidential markings in Serbian/Croatian, classifying them according to their evidential functions and discussing their morphosyntactic and semantic properties with regard to a distinction between (evidential) particles and sentence adverbs.

3. Verbs of perception Among different verbs of perception, we are focused on two largest groups ‒ verbs of visual and auditory perception.

3.1. Visual perception We will start this section by examining the basic verb videti ‘see’, and then proceed to other verbs of visual perception.

3.1.1. Videti Gnjatović and Matasović (2010) have shown that constructions containing perception verbs can distinguish between direct and indirect evidentiality, depending on the choice of the complementizer (so that kako-clauses imply direct and da-clauses indicate indirect, inferential evidentiality) or on the type of construction (so that different types of raising indicate direct rather than indirect evidentiality). Apart from these syntactic strategies, certain forms of videti are conventionalized as markers of evidentiality. Consider the following examples: 26 Jovan Čudomirović

(3) I dok puca pogled po obroncima Rogozine, grabimo nazad. Niko posle nas, vidimo, nije tuda prošao. noone after 1PL.GEN see-PRS.1PL NEG_AUX.PRS.3SG there pass-APART.SG.M ‘And while the view spreads over the slopes of Rogozina mountain, we are hurrying back. Nobody has passed thereby after us, we see.’ (Politika, 28. 12. 2007) (4) Vozimo se, vozimo, a ona retko da reč progovori. Drema, vidi se da doze-PRS.3SG see-PRS.3SG REFL COMP je uvek umorna. be-COP.PRS.3SG always tired.SG.F ‘We are riding, riding, and she rarely utters a word. She is dozing, one can tell that she’s always tired.’ (I. Sekulić, Kronika palanačkog groblja)1 (5) Vaša je knjiga nalik maloj istoriji socijalističke ideje koju ste sagledali kroz teoriju ali i praksu. […] I dalje, vidi se, verujete u socijalizam? still see-PRS.3SG REFL believe-PRS.2PL in socialism ‘Your book is like a short history of the socialist idea, observed through theory as well as practice. […] You still, one could tell / it shows, believe in socialism?’ (Politika, 25. 12. 2005)

In (3), we find PRS.1PL-form of videti ‘see’ used parenthetically to indicate that the speaker founds his claim on some perceptually acquired information; however, since its form is finite, it could be also interpreted as denoting an act of perception and not simply modifying a statement about something else, in which case it doesn’t fulfill all the conditions from section 2.2. In that regard, (4) and (5) are different, and they illustrate two “stages” of an evidential marker’s development from the prototypical verb of non-volitional visual perception (“hear-class”), i.e. videti ‘see’. In both cases, the agent is eliminated from the syntax by the use of the reflexive clitic, but in (5) the verb is also syntactically detached, resulting in a parenthetically used unit which modifies the proposition it is inserted in with regard to the source of information. It indicates that the claim stated is made on the basis of some evidence available to the speaker. Although close to what is usually labeled as a particle, this syntactically detached verb form remains sensitive to temporal reference: (6) Posle sat i 45 minuta programa, Stefan Milenković, njegova supruga Ani, i Adam pet puta su vraćani na bis, što je, five times AUX.PRS.3PL return-PPART.PL.M on encore which AUX.PRS.3SG

1 All the examples taken from EKSJ are followed by information regarding the exact source to which it belongs. Examples taken from the web (and not from EKSJ) are followed by the URL under which it can be found. Examples without any bracketed information about the source are constructed by the author. Verbs of perception and speech as sources of evidential markers in Serbian 27

videlo se, godilo slavnim muzičarima. see-APART.SG.N REFL suit-APART.SG.N famous-DAT.PL.M musicians-DAT.PL.M ‘After an hour and 45 minutes of performing, Stefan Milenković, his wife Ani, and Adam returned five times as an encore, which, it was obvious, the famous musicians enjoyed.’ (Politika, 9. 8. 2007) Although quite rarely, inferential vidi se can also be followed by a kako-clause: (7) Eduardove oči postanu ogromne. Vidi se kako u njima raste neka see-PRS.3SG REFL COMP in they-LOC rise-PRS.3SG some-SG.F golema sumnja huge-SG.F doubt-SG.F i kako se pretvara u izvesnost. ‘Eduard’s eyes became huge. Obviously some great doubt is rising in them, which is turning into certainty.’ (E.M. Remark, Crni obelisk: jedne mladosti) Fully detached (parenthetical) vidi se and vidi se followed by a content clause differ with regard to addressability (in Boye/Harder’s 2009 sense) because the latter is addressable while the former is not. We can show this by modifying examples (4) and (5) and applying an addressability test (using zaista ‘really’ in a question formed by the question particle da li): (8) – Vidi se da je uvek umorna. ‒ see-PRS.3SG REFL COMP AUX.PRS.3SG always tired-NOM.SG.F ‒ Da li se zaista vidi? Q REFL really see-PRS.3SG ‘‒ One can tell that she’s always tired. ‒ Can one really tell?’ (9) ‒ I dalje, vidi se, verujete u socijalizam. still see-PRS.3SG REFL believe-PRS.2PL in socialism ‒ *Da li se zaista vidi? Q REFL really see-PRS.3SG ‘‒ You still, one could tell, believe in socialism. ‒ Can one really tell?’ It is to be noted that, in all the examples, the verb videti exhibits a metonymical extension of its primary meaning: the woman’s tiredness in (4), the author’s believing in (5), and the musicians’ pleasure in (6) are not literally seen, they are rather inferred, understood. The metonymy in question ‒ SEEING FOR KNOWING/UNDERSTANDING ‒ is pervasive and cross-linguistically widespread (cf. Cvetković 2003 for polysemy of 28 Jovan Čudomirović perception verbs in Serbian).2 Matlock (1989) has already shown that this shift plays a crucial role in developing evidential markers from verbs of visual perception, and as (4‒7) show, it is the same shift that enables evidential vidi se to extend in the same way, from indicating perceptually based inference in (4), (6) and (7) to marking non- perceptually based inference in (5).

3.1.2. Videti and gledati The result of a completely different path of developing an evidential marker is found in the examples (10-19), concerning the adverbs očevidno/očigledno ‘obviously’, derived by compounding videti ‘see’ or gledati ‘look’ and oko ‘eye’.3 Skok (1971‒ 1973: s.v. oko) relates očigledno to the prepositional phrase nȁ oči glȅdē ‘obviously’, which is still preserved as a preposition in expressions like Uradio je to naočigled svih ‘He did it in front of everyone’ (so that everyone could witness it), where naoči- gled governs the genitive. Such expressions usually indicate that the action in question is inappropriate or unexpected. According to the JAZU historical dictionary (RJAZU, 1880‒1976: s.v. očevidan; s.v. očigledan), both words ‒ with the oldest examples dating to 16th century for očevidno (Skok, 1971‒1973: s.v. oko) and the first half of the 18th century for očigledno ‒ originally meant ‘seen by eyes’ but also ‘one who saw something with his own eyes’ (as an adjective in a collocation with the noun sv(j)edok ‘witness’), as in To mnozi očigledni svjedoci ne drže za istinu ‘Many eyewitnesses don’t consider this to be true’ (RJAZU, 1880‒1976: s.v. očigledan). One of two typical ways of marking inferential evidentiality is shown in (10-13), where we find očevidno/očigledno as a predicative (with copula in (10-12), and without it in (13)) in sentences with (extraposed) clausal subjects, thus indicating inferential evidentiality, i.e. that claims conveyed in a content clause with da are founded on evidence available to the speaker: (10) Ovo terećenje ne stoji, jer optuženi u inkriminisanom članku izrično kaže: 1) da je ostao pobornik socijalizma, 2) da je protiv vaspostavljanja buržoaskih stranaka, 3) da nova stranka ima biti socijalistička. Prema tome, očevidno je so obviously-ADV COP.PRS.3SG.

2 Lakoff/Johnson (1980) labeled this shift as metaphor, but we regard it as metonymy since the connection between vision and knowledge is basically metonymic, i.e. it is primarily based on (causal) contiguity rather than similarity (cf. Radden 2002: 420-422). Although many authors still treat this extension as metaphoric, they also admit that it relies on a metonymic relation (cf. Kővecses 2010: 186). 3 It should be mentioned that there is a third synonymical marker ‒ očito ‒ which we don’t discuss here since it doesn’t have any perception/speech verb as its lexical source. Verbs of perception and speech as sources of evidential markers in Serbian 29

da je namera optuženog bila […] COMP AUX.PRS.3SG intention-SG.F accused-GEN.SG.MCOP.APART.SG.F da vlast radnog naroda FNRJ […] postavi na širu demokratsku osnovu. ‘The accusation doesn’t hold up since the accused in the incriminated article explicitly said: 1) that he remained a supporter of socialism, 2) that he is against the renewal of the bourgois parties, 3) that the new party had to be a socialist one. So it is obvious that the intention of the accused was […] to put the power of the working people of FNRJ […] on a wider democratic foundation.’ (Oliver B. Injac, Velike advokatske) (11) Po završenoj utakmici Rudić je dugo polemisao sa sudijama koji se zbog toga nisu mnogo uzbuđivali. Očigledno je da ga dobro poznaju. obviously-ADV COP.PRS.3SG COMP he-ACC well know-PRS.3PL ‘After the game ended, Rudić argued for a long time with the referees, who were not very affected by that. It is obvious that they know him well.’ (Politika, 14. 8. 2000) (12) Različite vrste zemljišta tako su izmešane different-SG.F types-SG.F soil-GEN.SG.N so AUX.PRS.3PL mix-PPART.PL.F da je očigledno kako su one COMP COP.PRS.3SG obvious-ADV COMP AUX.PRS.3PL those-SG.F starije nabacivane preko sloja mlađih older-SG.F throw-PPART.PL.F over layer-GEN.SG.M younger-GEN.PL ‘Different types of soil were mixed up in such a way that it was obvious that the older ones were being thrown over the newer ones [...].’ (Z. Nikolić i dr., Beograd ispod Beograda) (13) Ali fratar nije ni pomišljao da se upušta u opšte stvari. [...] Očigledno da fratru nije bilo obviously-ADV COMP friar-DAT.SG.M NEG_AUX.PRS.3SG AUX.APART.SG.N mnogo stalo ni do Rusa much stay-APART.SG.M neither to Russian-GEN.PL.M ni do Francuza. nor to French-GEN.PL.M ‘But the frier didn’t even think of getting into the general matters. Obviously, the friar didn’t care that much either about the Russians or the French.’ (I. Andrić, Travnička hronika) The other way is to use očevidno/očigledno in a particle-like manner, i.e. it does not participate in the constituent structure of the clause (usually with propositional scope, but constituent scope is also possible, as in (14)) and tends to parentheticalize: (14) Na kožnom kanabetu, sa druge strane stola, bila je nameštena postelja, i na njoj je u domaćem ogrtaču i sa kalpakom od hartije, upola ležaoMaksimov, očevidno bolestan i oslabeo, obviously-ADV ill-NOM.M.SG and weak-NOM.M.SG premda se slatko smešio. though REFL blissfully smile-APART.SG.M