Evidentiality and Modality: Evidence from emerging evidentials in Greek

Evidentiality and Modality: Evidence from emerging evidentials in Greek Anastasios Tsangalidis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki atsangal@enl.auth.gr The Nature of Evidentiality Leiden University 14-16.6.2012 1

Main points 1. No grammatical evidentials in Greek? 2. The emergent data 2.1 Parenthetical lei ( say-3sg ) 2.2 Parenthetical parakalo ( pray-1sg ) 3. Other possible evidentiality markers 3.1 The subjunctive marker na 3.2 The future marker tha 4. The relationship between evidentiality and modality 2

1. No grammatical marking of evidentiality in Greek? Explicitly discussed in the Balkan Sprachbund context, (e.g. Friedman (2006: 668), Joseph 2003, Tomić (2011: 318-320). There is no obvious Greek counterpart of any of the forms identified as evidential, admirative, reportative, unwitnessed, non-confirmative etc. in Turkish, Albanian, Balkan Slavic, and most Balkan Romance languages (though these do not translate one another, either). The question is not usually raised in the description of Greek and the following statement is exceptional in this respect: (1) A speaker s authority for making an assertion such as through personal witnessing, secondhand information, and the like, can only be expressed by lexical means and not morphologically. Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton 1987: 185 3

The term evidentiality in Greek There is no generally accepted Greek term (though Veloudis 2001, 2005 and the Greek version of Crystal s Dictionary suggest αυτοπτικότητα eyewitnessness as the term to be used for evidentiality as a notional category) and there is no reference to it in Greek grammars. Evidentiality is not mentioned at all in either Tsangalidis 2009 or Haberland 2010. 4

2. The emergent data 2.1 Parenthetical lei say-3sg As is frequently noted in the literature, the verb leo say has developed an impersonal use in the 3sg which is often described as evidential (Friedman 2003, Joseph 2003, Aikhenvald 2004: 142). Though not always distinct from a corresponding personal use, it may be argued to be involved at some early stage of a possible grammaticalization, in the manner noted in the path from SAY to Evidential: (2) Lezgian luhunda ( one says cf. luhun say ) > -lda, hearsay evidential marker (Haspelmath 1993: 232). English they say > hearsay evidential marker; for example, They say she s coming (Givón 1991a: 83). Taiwanese, Southen Min kong say > evidential marker of hearsay information (Chappell forthc.). More research is required on the general process leading to the rise of evidential markers (see Willett 1988). Heine & Kuteva 2002: 265 5

Setatos provides the example in (3) and describes it as the statement of an uncertain rumour or assumption (1994a: 137) and as an instance of reservation of acceptance on the part of the speaker (1994b: 154): (3) Aftos lei δen pije pote sxolio He say.3sg not go.past.3sg never school It is rumoured that he never went to school This is clearly different from the personal use of leo: (3 ) Lei oti aftos δen pije pote sxolio say.3sg that he not go.past.3sg never school S/he says that he never went to school Moreover, both (3) and (3 ) are clearly distinct from a regular 3sg morphological passive as in (3 ): (3 ) Lejete oti aftos δen pije pote sxolio say-pass.3sg that he not go.past.3sg never school It is said that he never went to school 6

More recent examples from the internet very common in blogs on current affairs and general news reports, in stories and other narratives: (4) Piγan lei ke ton psifisan 236,000 polites. Go.PAST-3PL say-3sg and him voted 236,000 citizens It is rumoured that 236,000 went and voted for him. (5) Erxete lei i aniksi to sk. Na to pistepso? Ki an apoγoitefto? come.3sg say.3sg the spring the weekend. SUBJV it believe? And if get.disappointed-1sg? The spring is rumoured to be arriving this weekend. Shall I believe it? And what if I get disappointed? (6) imaste lei stus 25 pio plusius ston kozmo be.1pl say.3sg in-the 25 more rich in-the world We are, it is rumoured, among the 25 richest peoples in the world 7

More data and problems (7) Otan jeniθike o Xristos ke piγan lei i voski na proskinisun, itan nixta skotini. when was.born-3sg the Christ and go.past.3pl say.3sg the shepherds to worship.3pl was.3sg night dark When Christ was born and the shepherds went, as the story goes, to honour him, it was a dark night. These could be (non-canonical) personal uses of a true 3sg verb with an understood agent reporting the content of the sentence, but normally this would involve different structural properties different word order and use of a complementizer (see (3 ) and (4 )). There are other obvious ways in which this parenthetical lei is distinct from a truly 3sg verb of saying but it does not appear to have acquired a distinct status; in fact it is not necessarily restricted to either 3sg or impfv nonpast. 8

2.2 Parenthetical parakalo ( pray-1sg ) Setatos also mentions parakalo as signaling the assertion of an unbelievable fact, e.g.: (8) irθan 500 vraziliani dimosiografi parakalo come.past-3pl 500 Brazilian journalists pray-1sg 500 Brazilian journalists came unbelievably! This is the same marker as the lexical verb for beg, pray and the well known response to thank you! (efxaristoparakalo). This use is clearly unrelated to these other uses and very close to a (lexical) marker of the unexpected, of surprise, mirativity, etc. 9

3. Other possible evidentiality markers (e.g. Ifantidou 2001 on taha) also discussed in the general literature: (9) Take Modern Greek. It is rather unusual for a language spoken in the Balkans (Friedman 2003: 189) in that it does not have evidentiality. (As pointed out by Joseph 2003: 315, evidentials probably did not diffuse into Greek because of various socio-cultural reasons and the Greeks attitude towards their language.) The adverb taha maybe, it seems, apparently is often referred to as a hesitation marker (and treated by Ifantidou 2001: 170-1 as a weak evidentiality marker: see Chapter 1). However, it has nothing to do with grammatical evidentiality or even a strategy of any kind any language has similar lexical means expressing a speaker s hedging, doubt, and attitude to information. Greek does have a particle leei one says meaning reportedly, allegedly (this particle can also acquire mirative extensions) (Friedman 2003: 189). At most, this could be an incipient reported evidential, comparable to Colombian Spanish dizque Aikhenvald 2004: 150-151 10

3.1 The subjunctive marker na used as a complementizer in live reports (Veloudis 2001, 2005: 194; Delveroudi et al. 1994) (10) ton vlepo na kolimba (vs. vlepo oti kolimba) Him see-1sg subjv swim-3sg (vs. see-1sg that swim-3sg) I (can) see him swimming (11) ton iδa na kolimba (vs. iδa oti kolimba) Him see.past-1sg subjv swim-3sg (vs. see.past-1sg that swim-3sg) I saw him swimming (12) ton iδa na kolimba, ala δen vazo ke to xeri mu sti fotia. Him see.past-1sg subjv swim-3sg, but not put and the hand my in-the fire I saw him swimming, but I offer no guarantees 11

3.2 The future marker tha (Giannakidou 2011) and Giannakidou and Mari 2012 The analysis of the classic postman examples as evidentials, clearly relies on NOT making a distinction between inferential epistemic modality and inferential evidentiality: Tha ine o taxidromos. FUT be.3sg the postman That ll be the postman 12

4. The relationship between evidentiality and modality Is evidentiality distinct from modality? Is evidentiality a modal concept? Are they related in the same manner as other TAM terms? (13) Positions on epistemic modality and evidentiality (De Haan 2010: 106) a. evidentiality is part of epistemic modality (Palmer 1986) b. evidentiality and epistemic modality are part of a larger domain (Palmer 2001, the larger domain is called propositional modality) c. evidentiality and epistemic modality partially overlap (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998, the area of overlap is inferentiality) d. evidentiality and epistemic modality are separate domains (De Haan 1999, Aikhenvald 2004) 13

What the schema in (14) does show is that the modal categories systematically have a wider scope than categories such as time and types of aspect. (14) Nuyts 2006: 19: > evidentiality > epistemic modality > deontic modality > time > quantificational aspect [frequency]/dynamic modality > qualificational aspect [internal phases] v (parts of the) STATE OF AFFAIRS It also shows that the juxtaposition of the categories of time, aspect and modality in treatments of TAM marking is somewhat misleading: modality is at a higher level of abstraction than time and aspect, and only specific modal categories can be put on par with these latter qualificational categories. Can (14) capture the direction of potential grammaticalization? Especially if seen as movement upwards (when translated in a tree structure)? 14

There are various views in the literature that can be placed between (13b) and (13c), e.g. Bybee et al. 1994: 180; Saeed 2003: 141; however, (13c) and (13d) seem more promising in the light of the Greek data The Greek data, in relation to (14) could perhaps suggest the possibility of treating evidentiality as a possible further extension from epistemic modality. Relating (14) to any one of the various theories that support the historical development from, say, deontic modality to epistemic modality, then the data relating to na and tha might also support a possible development of epistemic modals into evidentials. This could then reconcile the analysis of Giannakidou & Mari with a possible grammaticalization approach (but I will not attempt a historical account here). Neither lei nor parakalo are anywhere near the status of a grammatical marker. (cf. also Friedman 2004: 116) 15

5. Conclusions: Formal categories Notional definitions The Greek data can only support the distinction between lexical and grammatical marking in the areas broadly described as evidential. There is no system of evidentiality in the narrow sense (no set of grammatical markers dedicated to encoding information source). As in all languages, many lexical items may express assumptions, possibilities and hedging (cf. also Aikhenvald 2004: 150). The discussion of the Greek data in relation to the defining properties of epistemic modality and evidentiality can shed light to the boundaries between evidentiality as a notional category and its semantic and pragmatic neighbours. 16

References Aikhenvald, A. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press. Bybee, J., R. D. Perkins & W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press Crystal, D. 2001. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [translated by G. J. Xydopoulos]. Athens: Patakis. De Haan, F. 2010. Building a Semantic Map: Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Approaches. Linguistic Discovery 8.1:102-117. Delveroudi, R., I. Tsamadou & S. Vassilaki. Mood and Modality in Modern Greek: The particle na. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis & M. Sifianou (eds) Themes in Greek Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 185-192. Friedman, V. A. 2003. Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian. In A. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds) Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 189-218. Friedman, V. A. 2004. The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics. In O. M. Tomić (ed). Balkan Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 101-134. Friedman, V. A. 2006. Balkans as a Linguistic Area. In K. Brown (ed. in chief) Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier. Vol. 1: 657-672. Giannakidou, A. 2011. Modality, Nonveridicality, and the present: the semantics of na and tha. Plenary paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Komotini, September 2011. Giannakidou, A. and A. Mari. 2012. An evidential analysis of Greek and Italian Future Morphemes. Paper presented at TNE2012. Haberland, H. 2010. Mood in Greek. In B. Rothstein and R. Thieroff (eds) Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 473-492. Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. 17

Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Joseph, B. D. 2003. Evidentials: Summation, Questions, Prospects. In A. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.) Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 307-327. Joseph, B. D. & I. Philippaki-Warburton. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm. Nuyts, J. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (ed.) The expression of modality. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 1-26. Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press. Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press. Setatos, M. 1994a. Argumentative uses of pragmatic particles in Standard Modern Greek. In M. Setatos, Linguistic Studies. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 127-146. Setatos, M. 1994b. Argumentative uses of lego [in Greek]. In M. Setatos, Linguistic Studies. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 147-166. Tomić, O. M. 2011. Balkan Sprachbund features. In B. Kortmann & J. van der Auwera (eds) The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 307-323. Tsangalidis, A. 2009. Modals in Greek. In B. Hansen & F. De Haan (eds) Modals in the Languages of Europe: A Reference Work. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 139-163. van der Auwera, J. & V. Plungian. 1998. Modality s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79-124. Veloudis, I. 2001. Stressed na and unstressed na. In Y. Agouraki et al. (eds) Greek Linguistics 99: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Nicosia, September 1999. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press. Veloudis, I. 2005. On the Semantics of Modern Greek: Aspects of Epistemic Modality. [in Greek]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 18