Volume 76, Issue 1

This paper argues that a definition of evidentiality as a linguistic notion should be based on the pragmatic properties of evidential forms and their distribution in spoken discourse. The prevailing definition of evidentiality as signaling “information source” is based on the idea that evidentials encode a solitary speaker’s perception and cognitive processes, but this definition does not fit well with observations regarding the use and distribution of evidentials. A definition of evidentiality in terms of “information source” has largely disregarded evidentials in-use, which is especially true for typologically oriented studies of evidentiality. Recent descriptions of evidentials and evidential systems have shown that evidentials encode meanings related to ownership of knowledge, rather than information source and it is evident from such descriptions that social and interactional parameters are encoded in evidential forms. The attested semantic and pragmatic complexity of evidential systems constitutes an analytical challenge that the present paper aims to address.

This paper seeks to improve the understanding of the conceptual structure of pluractionality, a bundle of functions denoting the plurality of events. By conducting a multidimensional scaling analysis on 366 marking strategies from the 183-language sample in Mattiola, Simone (2019. Typology of pluractional constructions in the languages of the world . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins), a spatial model is presented showing the semantic distance of pluractional functions as Euclidean distance. This quantitatively induced conceptual space differs in some way from the space proposed by Mattiola (2019) comprising data from only a small fraction of the sample. The analysis reveals that the conceptual space could be interpreted as defined by two prominent dimensions: a vertical dimension that represents the boundedness of events and a horizontal dimension that represents participant-oriented versus event-oriented plurality.

This article explores a typologically unusual but recurrent evolutionary path of innovated future formations neglected by typological research: the change of predicative deverbal nouns (understood here in the broad sense of any deverbal nominal expression/formation) – namely agent nouns and participles – denoting actions typical of referents to future verb-forms via hypoanalysis. Starting with an overview of typologically recurrent ways of creating new future formations, the article seeks to demonstrate that the l -future found in the three Nuristani languages Nuristani Kalasha, Ashkun and Katë developed from active participles designating actions typical of their referents. As a typological parallel of this development the Vedic Sanskrit tā́ -future is established, and it is shown by the example of the English will  + infinitive future and the futurate use of Russian perfective non-past verb-forms how the change of predicative deverbal nouns denoting actions typical of referents to future verb-forms is brought about by means of hypoanalysis.

One of the languages on the African continent which displays ergative features is Tima, a Niger-Congo language spoken in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan. In this contribution, the impact of attentional centering – influenced by factors including the animacy of the participants, the identifiability of the agent, and the givenness of either A or P participant – on the choice of construction between AVO and OV Aerg is investigated. The research brought forth the following findings: token-identifiable human agents typically trigger an AVO constituent order; type-identifiable human agents typically trigger an OVAerg constituent order; the event described may or may not be decomposed into two sub-events; inanimate agents acting on human animates trigger a decomposition of the event into two sub-events: first, P is presented, and second, A is introduced as an ergative-marked participant following the verb. The information structural device of givenness interacts with the two parameters of agent-identifiability and animacy. A given agent always leads to an AVO construction. A given patient finds the speaker faced with the choice of opting for an AVO or an OVAerg construction.