UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Aspect and evidentiality A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Margit Lia Bowler 2018 c Copyright by Margit Lia Bowler 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Aspect and evidentiality by Margit Lia Bowler Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Yael Sharvit, Chair A number of unrelated languages have portmanteau morphemes with both temporal and evidential meanings (e.g. Cherokee (Pulte 1985), Kalaallisut (Fortescue 2003), Tariana (Aikhenvald 2004), and Turkish (Slobin and Aksu 1982), among many others). These temporal and evidential meanings are strikingly consistent, cross-linguistically. Evidential- ity frequently co-occurs as part of other grammatical categories (Aikhenvald 2018, 2004); however, most theories of evidentiality do not discuss its connection with other kinds of meaning. In this dissertation, I provide a formal account of the connection between tempo- ral and evidential meanings through a case study of a set of portmanteau tense/aspect and evidential (TAE) morphemes in Tatar (Turkic). Part 1 of the dissertation provides in-depth description of the evidential and temporal interpretation of the Tatar TAE morphemes. This Tatar data was collected through original fieldwork on the language. Part 2 analyzes the Tatar TAE morphemes as having underlyingly temporal semantics. I propose that the Tatar TAE morphemes assert temporal meaning, and pragmatically implicate evidential meaning. I accomplish this by positing a tripartite event ontology (following Moens and Steedman 1988) in which events are preceded by contingently related pre-states and are followed by contingently related event post-states. I propose that the evidential meanings of the Tatar TAE morphemes arise as a “byproduct” of their ability to view events from within the runtimes of their pre- and post-states. I show that the evidential readings as- sociated with the Tatar TAE morphemes are cancellable in some discourse contexts, and ii completely absent in others. This suggests that a pragmatic mechanism is needed to ac- count for their use. This dissertation joins and formalizes intuitions about event pre- and post-states, causality, and evidentiality that have been previously described in both the temporal and evidential literatures (e.g. Comrie 1976, Nikolaeva 1999, and Bashir 2006, among others). In doing so, I account for both the temporal and evidential contributions of the Tatar TAE morphemes. iii The dissertation of Margit Lia Bowler is approved. Roumyana Pancheva Pam Munro Jessica Rett Yael Sharvit, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2018 iv For my mom, dad, and Marilyn v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4 1.1 What this dissertation is about..........................4 1.1.1 Structure of the dissertation.......................7 1.2 Background on Tatar and fieldwork methodology...............9 I The Tatar tense/aspect and evidential system 12 2 Evidential contributions of the Tatar TAE suffixes :::::::::::::::: 13 2.1 Introduction.................................... 13 2.1.1 Evidential terminology.......................... 16 2.2 Evidential interpretation of the TAE suffixes in matrix clauses........ 18 2.2.1 Evidentiality in the Tatar past-oriented TAE suffixes......... 19 2.2.2 Evidentiality in the Tatar future-oriented TAE suffixes........ 29 2.2.3 Negation and the TAE suffixes: Lack of embedding.......... 37 2.2.4 Recap: Evidential interpretation of TAE suffixes in matrix clauses.. 39 2.3 Evidential interpretation of semantically embedded TAE suffixes....... 40 2.3.1 Clausal embeddings........................... 41 2.3.2 Evidentiality in questions: Interrogative flip.............. 55 2.3.3 Recap: Evidential contribution of Tatar TAE suffixes in semantically embedded environments......................... 59 2.4 Conclusion.................................... 60 3 Temporal contributions of the Tatar TAE suffixes ::::::::::::::::: 61 3.1 Introduction.................................... 61 vi 3.2 Temporal interpretation of TAE suffixes in matrix clauses........... 64 3.2.1 Past-oriented TAE suffixes........................ 64 3.2.2 Present- and future-oriented TAE suffixes................ 70 3.2.3 Recap: Temporal interpretation of TAE suffixes in matrix clauses... 78 3.3 Temporal interpretation of semantically embedded TAE suffixes....... 78 3.3.1 Temporal interpretation of TAE suffixes in embedded clauses..... 79 3.3.2 Embedding TAE suffixes under ide ‘PST’................ 91 3.3.3 Recap: Temporal interpretation of TAE suffixes in semantically em- bedded environments.......................... 97 3.4 Conclusion.................................... 97 II An aspectual proposal for evidentiality 100 4 Evaluating the Tatar data against prior theories of evidentiality :::::::: 101 4.1 Introduction................................... 101 4.1.1 Semantic variables and types...................... 102 4.2 Preliminary discussion: Evidentials as epistemic modals........... 103 4.2.1 Basic epistemic modal analysis of evidentiality............. 103 4.2.2 Tests in the literature for modality in evidential expressions..... 105 4.2.3 Recap................................... 120 4.3 Existing analyses of evidential systems that are morphosyntactically related to tense/aspect.................................. 121 4.3.1 Evidence Acquisition Time analyses of evidentiality.......... 122 4.3.2 Recap................................... 140 4.3.3 Trace analyses of evidentiality..................... 141 4.3.4 Recap................................... 147 vii 4.4 Conclusion and foreshadowing......................... 150 5 Deriving the temporal and evidential interpretations of the Tatar TAE suffixes in matrix clauses ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 154 5.1 Introduction.................................... 154 5.2 Temporal ontology................................ 155 5.2.1 Moens & Steedman (1988)....................... 156 5.2.2 The ontology that I assume....................... 159 5.3 The link between speaker perception of pre- and post-states and evidential- ity......................................... 162 5.3.1 Unformalized application to -GAn ‘RESULT’.............. 165 5.3.2 Unformalized application to -(y)Ac¸AK ‘PROSP’............. 167 5.3.3 Recap................................... 169 5.4 Semantics and pragmatics of the Tatar TAE morphemes............ 172 5.4.1 Present- and future-oriented TAE morphemes............. 176 5.4.2 Past-oriented TAE morphemes..................... 187 5.4.3 Evaluating my theory against some proposed tests for modality in the Tatar TAE suffixes.......................... 196 5.5 Conclusion.................................... 202 6 Deriving the temporal and evidential interpretations of the Tatar TAE suffixes in clausal embeddings :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 204 6.1 Introduction.................................... 204 6.2 Tatar TAE suffixes in embedded CPs...................... 205 6.2.1 Updated denotations.......................... 208 6.2.2 Narrow scope readings of future oriented TAE suffixes in embedded CPs.................................... 211 viii 6.2.3 Narrow scope readings of past oriented TAE suffixes in embedded CPs.................................... 224 6.2.4 Wide scope readings of past oriented TAE suffixes in embedded CPs 230 6.2.5 Recap................................... 238 6.3 Tatar TAE suffixes in embedded verbal nominalizations............ 239 6.3.1 -(y)Ac¸AK in embedded verbal nominalizations............ 242 6.3.2 -GAn in embedded verbal nominalizations............... 244 6.3.3 Recap................................... 249 6.4 Conclusion.................................... 250 7 Conclusion ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 251 7.1 What this dissertation does and does not do.................. 251 7.1.1 Data this dissertation accounts for................... 251 7.1.2 Data this dissertation does not account for.............. 253 7.2 Cross-linguistic observations and predictions................. 256 7.2.1 Languages with tense/aspect pairs................... 256 7.2.2 Languages without tense/aspect pairs................. 257 7.3 Future directions................................. 259 ix LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Temporal and evidential meanings associated with the core set of Tatar TAE suffixes addressed in this dissertation........................7 2.1 Inventory of TAE morphemes in Tatar........................ 15 2.2 Tatar subject agreement paradigms and free (nominative) pronouns....... 15 2.3 Core set of Tatar TAE suffixes addressed in this dissertation............ 19 2.4 Core set of Tatar TAE morphemes addressed in this dissertation (repeated from Table 2.3)....................................... 40 2.5 Semantic interpretations of embedded clause types in Tatar............ 42 2.6 Available evidential interpretations of the Tatar TAE suffixes in embedded CPs. 45 2.7 Grammaticality and evidential interpretation of the Tatar TAE suffixes in em- bedded verbal nominalizations........................... 52 2.8 Distribution and interpretation of the Tatar TAE suffixes in clausal embeddings. 60 3.1 Temporal contributions of the Tatar TAE suffixes.................. 62 3.2 Distribution and interpretation of the Tatar TAE suffixes in clausal embeddings. 80 3.3 Grammaticality of the Tatar TAE suffixes in combination with ide ‘PST.’..... 92 3.4 Comparison of my description of the Tatar TAE suffixes to Greed(2014), Tat- evosov(2007), and Poppe(1961).........................