Chapter 2. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian
-
Benjamin Brosig
Abstract
Past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian distinguish between established (‑sang) and non-established knowledge, which is then either based on direct (‑laa) or indirect (‑jee) evidence. Time of acquisition thus determines whether information source is marked, though vivid recollection (‑laa) and deferred realization (‑jee) overrule it. Conversely, attempted recollection in questions (‑l=uu) doesn’t presuppose sensory perception. A fourth suffix (‑v) is used if well-established events still surprise the speaker. These suffixes may also be used in a discontinuous fashion to refer to the future and then modally qualify predictions as inevitable (‑sang), apprehended [but preventable] (‑v), based on sensory evidence (‑laa) or inferred (‑jee). The distinction between unsourced ‑sang and sourced ‑laa/-jee is thus not about factual stance, but codes the extent to which information is consolidated in memory.
Abstract
Past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian distinguish between established (‑sang) and non-established knowledge, which is then either based on direct (‑laa) or indirect (‑jee) evidence. Time of acquisition thus determines whether information source is marked, though vivid recollection (‑laa) and deferred realization (‑jee) overrule it. Conversely, attempted recollection in questions (‑l=uu) doesn’t presuppose sensory perception. A fourth suffix (‑v) is used if well-established events still surprise the speaker. These suffixes may also be used in a discontinuous fashion to refer to the future and then modally qualify predictions as inevitable (‑sang), apprehended [but preventable] (‑v), based on sensory evidence (‑laa) or inferred (‑jee). The distinction between unsourced ‑sang and sourced ‑laa/-jee is thus not about factual stance, but codes the extent to which information is consolidated in memory.
Kapitel in diesem Buch
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface vii
- Introduction 1
-
Part I. What do we know? Knowledge and evidence
- Chapter 1. Evidentiality as stance 19
- Chapter 2. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian 45
- Chapter 3. I think and I believe 77
- Chapter 4. (Yo) creo que as a marker of evidentiality and epistemic modality 99
- Chapter 5. Finnish evidential adverbs in argumentative texts 121
-
Part II. When do we know? Accessibility of evidence in time
- Chapter 6. Uralic perspectives on experimental evidence for evidentials 145
- Chapter 7. Reportive sollen in an exclusively functional view of evidentiality 173
- Chapter 8. The French future 199
- Chapter 9. Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in the Tibetic languages 227
- Chapter 10. From similarity to evidentiality 257
- Chapter 11. What can different types of linguistic data teach us on evidentiality? 281
- Author Index 305
- Language index 309
- Subject index 311
Kapitel in diesem Buch
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface vii
- Introduction 1
-
Part I. What do we know? Knowledge and evidence
- Chapter 1. Evidentiality as stance 19
- Chapter 2. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian 45
- Chapter 3. I think and I believe 77
- Chapter 4. (Yo) creo que as a marker of evidentiality and epistemic modality 99
- Chapter 5. Finnish evidential adverbs in argumentative texts 121
-
Part II. When do we know? Accessibility of evidence in time
- Chapter 6. Uralic perspectives on experimental evidence for evidentials 145
- Chapter 7. Reportive sollen in an exclusively functional view of evidentiality 173
- Chapter 8. The French future 199
- Chapter 9. Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in the Tibetic languages 227
- Chapter 10. From similarity to evidentiality 257
- Chapter 11. What can different types of linguistic data teach us on evidentiality? 281
- Author Index 305
- Language index 309
- Subject index 311
