1 Chapter 3 Non-propositional evidentiality* Guillaume Jacques 1 Introduction In most languages of the world where evidentiality is grammaticalized, it is expressed either by verbal morphology, sentential markers or adverbs, which have scope over the entire proposition. A minority of languages have evidential-like distinctions on markers (mainly deictic, see Aikhenvald 2004: 130) whose scope is limited to a noun phrase. The present study focuses on these non-propositional evidential markers. Evidential markers present in relative clauses embedded within noun phrases are not considered in this study: although some languages have restrictions on the use of evidential markers in relative clauses and other non-main clauses,1 many languages allow evidential markers on the verb in relative clauses (Aikhenvald 2004: 253-6; see for instance Nivaclé in section 7). Such evidential markers, although their scope is limited to the noun phrase that includes the relative clause are not strictly non-propositional, since they also at the same time have scope over the entire relative clause. Excluded from this survey are likewise clitic evidential markers that can combine with nouns phonologically, but have scope over the whole sentence, such as the reportative –si in Quechua (on which see for instance Faller 2002). This paper is divided into eight sections. First, I present the different types of non- propositional evidential markers, including demonstrative pronouns and adverbs, 2 determiners or various types of affixes. Second, I show how non-propositional evidential markers can encode morphosyntactic parameters such as case or topicality in addition to evidentiality. Third, I describe the different types of non-propositional sensory evidentials attested in the world’s languages. Fourth, I briefly mention a few rare cases of nonpropositional non-sensory evidentials. Fifth, I discuss how non-propositional _________________________ *I am grateful to Alexandra Aikhenvald, Benjamin Brosig, Gong Xun, Zev Handel, Annie Montaut, Amos Teo and Alice Vittrant for useful comments on previous versions of this paper. 1For instance in Japhug Gyalrong, the inferential cannot be used in relative clauses with a finite verb (Jacques to appear). 3 evidentiality and nominal tense can interact in some languages. Finally, I present some general observations on propositional and non-propositional evidential systems. 2 Subtypes of non-propositional evidentials In languages with evidential marking on demonstratives, the nonpropositional evidential sub-systems may be embedded within the proximal / distal system. This is particularly common in the case of sensory evidentials, especially those marking visibility, as exemplified by Lillooet (Salish) in Table 1 and Tsou (Austronesian) in Table 3 (Tung 1964, Yang 2000 and discussion below; see also sections 4.1.1, 4.2 and 4). Some languages combine visible / invisible and proximal / distal with other contrasts, such as elevation (Schapper 2014). Table 1: Demonstrative pronouns in Lillooet (van Eijk 1997: 168-9) visible invisible PROX MID DIST PROX MID DIST SG cʔa tiʔ tʔu kʷʔa niʔ kʷuʔ PL ʔizá ʔiz’ ʔizú kʷɬa nəɬ kʷɬ Lillooet determiners, on the other hand, have a much more fine-grained system, which encodes two degrees of sensory evidential distinctions, but lacks the proximal/distal distinction. Table 2 presents van Eijk (1997)’s analysis of the system. 4 Table 2: Articles in Lillooet (van Eijk 1997: 192) known unknown present absent present absent SG ti…a ni…a kʷu…a kʷu PL ʔi…a nəɬ…a kʷɬ…a kʷɬ The determiner ‘present, known’ ti...a or its plural form is used to refer to person or things visible to the speaker at utterance time (as in 1), or in specific cases to entities that the speaker saw in the past at an unspecified moment (van Eijk 1997: 193).2 ________________________ 2For glossing =a, I adopt Matthewson (1998)’s analysis as an ‘assertion of evidence’. 5 (1) pún-ɬkan ti=n-ɬk’ʷál’us=a find-1SG.A DET:VIS=1SG.POSS-basket=ASSERTION.OF.EXISTENCE I found my basket (when just mentioning the fact, or when showing the basket to the addressee) The determiners ‘unknown, present’ (kʷu...a and kʷɬ...a) on the other hand is used for entities that are not visible but perceptible through another sense, in particular audition or smell (van Eijk 1997: 195), as in example 2.3 (2) cʔas lákʷʔa ɬlákʷu come N.VIS there:N.VIS kʷu=sƛʼaɬáləm=a DET:N.VIS.SENS=grizzly=ASSERTION.OF.EXISTENCE There is a grizzly coming from there (used by a person who hears a grizzly). The other determiners ni...a and kʷu are used for referents that are not perceptible. In some languages, noun modifiers can be derived from demonstrative adverbs by means of a nominalizing morpheme. In such systems, demonstrative determiners and demonstrative adverbs are completely parallel and show the same evidential contrasts. For instance, in Khaling (Sino-Tibetan, Kiranti, Nepal), the demonstrative determiner/pronoun tiki-̂m ‘this (audible)’ is derived from the demonstrative adverb tikí ‘there (audible)’ by means of the all-purpose nominalizer –m .4 Cases of languages where nouns can directly take the same set of evidential markers as verbs (with semantic scope on the noun phrase) are extremely rare; Jarawara (Arawá; Aikhenvald 2004: 88, ex 3.19) however offers such an example, as in (3) where 6 the noun phrase Banawaa batori ‘the mouth of the Banawá’ takes the reported evidential suffix –mone. (3) Banawaa batori-tee-mone jaa faja otaa Banawá mouth-CUSTOMARY-REPORTED.F at then 1NSG.EXCL.S ka-waha-ro APPL-become.dawn-REMOTE.PST.FIRSTHAND-F otaa-ke 1NSG-DECLARATIVE.F ‘Then the day dawned on us (firsthand) (lit. we with-dawned) at the place reported to be (customarily) the mouth of the Banawá river’ _____________________ 3On the meaning of the propositional evidential marker lákʷʔa , see Matthewson (2010). 4See Bickel (1999) on this type of nominalizers and their various uses in the syntax of most Sino-Tibetan languages. 7 3 Non-propositional evidentials and other morphosyntactic parameters Non-propositional evidential markers can be combined with case marking and topicalization. The Tsou data in Table (3) illustrate markers encoding both evidentiality and case. Note that the case markers in Tsou are portmanteau morphemes: it is not possible to decompose them into two morphemes (evidential marker and case marker), at least synchronically. Table 3: Tsou case markers, adapted from Yang (2000: 54) case markers nominative oblique proximal ’e ta visual medial si ta distal ta ta non-visual sensory co nca/ninca hearsay ’o to belief / inference na no In other languages where case and evidential markers interact, such as Dyirbal, morphological boundaries are more transparent. Note however that even in Dyirbal the case paradigms of the evidential demonstratives are not completely predictable (see Dixon 2014). 8 Aside from proximal / distal distinction and case, a third parameter has been shown to interact with non-propositional evidentiality: topicality. For instance, the Chadic language Maaka has three evidential markers –mú ‘eye-witnessed’, –diỳ à ‘joint- perception’, –kà ‘assumption’ occurring on noun phrases (see section 4.3). They can be used with referents which are ‘hardly core participants, but rather topicalized peripheral participants that motivate an action or event’ (Storch & Coly 2014: 195-7). Non-propositional evidential system display a considerable diversity in terms of morphology, and it would not be surprising if future fieldwork brings to light previously unknown types of evidential markers in noun phrases. 4 Sensory evidentials Nearly all non-propositional evidential systems described in the literature involve sensory evidential meanings, rather than other types of evidential such as hearsay or inferential. This section first discusses the visual vs non-visual contrast, which has been described for almost all languages with non-propositional evidentials. 9 Secondly, it addresses the issue of non-visual sensory or auditory evidentials, which are considerably rarer. Thirdly, it mentions the existence of evidential markers encoding joint perception of speaker and addressee. Finally, it discusses the time frame of sensory perception, in particular the distinction between utterance time sensory evidentials vs lifespan sensory evidentials. 4.1 Visual evidential The first type of non-propositional evidential distinction to have been described is that between visible and non-visible demonstratives in Kwak’wala (Boas 1911: 527-531). System of demonstratives encoding a visible / invisible contrast are not particularly rare cross-linguistically, and are found on all continents. In the Sino-Tibetan family alone, for instance, visible / invisible contrasts on demonstratives have been reported for Kham (Watters 2002), some varieties of Wu Chinese (Yue 2003: 89) and Darma (Willis Oko 2015). The present paper does not attempt to systematically survey all systems of this type, but will mention some of their most conspicuous features. 4.1.1 Proximal / distal and visual evidentials While in Kwak’wala (as well as other Wakashan and Salishan languages), the visual / non-visual contrast is independent of the proximal / distal distinction, it is not the case of some languages with non-propositional evidentials. For instance, in Dyirbal (Dixon 1972: 45, Dixon 2014) we find three series of demonstratives ya– ‘here and visible’, ba– ‘there and visible’ and ŋa– ‘not visible’. In this system, the proximal / distal contrast is neutralized for non-visible referents.5 The 10 non-visible ŋa–