The Semantic Analysis of Evidentiality in Persian

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor of General Linguistics , Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Languages are different with regards to marking evidentiality. They have systems in which information source as firsthand versus non firsthand, or direct versus indirect is represented. This paper focuses on modern Persian to examine the existence and representation of this grammatical category. Using examples and based on a descriptive method, this study shows that there is no obligatory morphological means for representing evidentiality in Persian, and the process of referring to the source of information is represented through an optional sentence. Persian uses a syntactic way of referring to information source, that is unlike English which has some lexical way namely expressions such as ‘reportedly, allegedly’, etc. It is therefore argued that encoding information source in Persian is not obligatory, but optional. Moreover, it is illustrated that evidentiality is fused with modality in Persian while a category by its own in only a few languages. Accordingly, it is not a distinct linguistic category in Persian, but a subtype of modality. Different Persian sentences show that there is a strong tendency for declarative sentences, sentences in declarative modality, to be mapped on the right of the continuum in preference to those sentences in subjunctive modality on the left.
 
Extended Abstract
 1. Introduction
Source of information is one of the issues in relation to which different languages ​​of the world exhibit different behaviors. In nearly a quarter of the world's languages, it is important to know that on what sources of information the statements are based, for example, has the speaker seen, heard, been informed by others or deduced according to existing evidence? In these languages, lack of reference to the source of information causes ungrammaticality of the sentence. This grammatical concept encoding the source of information is called "evidentiality". In a simpler sense, evidentiality demonstrates how the speaker has come to know about what he says. Languages ​​act in a variety of ways for representation of evidentiality; some simply mark only the information the speaker has acquired from someone else; while others differentiate between the firsthand and the non-firsthand sources. Some languages ​​also compare the speaker's visually acquired information against information being heard, smelled or otherwise obtained through some other means. However, it should be noted that evidentiality is not related to the degree of the speaker’s assurance regarding the certainty of the sentence or truth and falsehood of the sentence in question.
In connection with the point previously mentioned, it is important to pay attention to two issues; firstly, the question of the compulsory nature of evidentiality in languages; and, secondly, the possibility of distinguishing between "mood" and "evidentiality". In the present article, we are going to find out, from a grammatical point of view, whether we can prove the existence of evidentiality in Persian. Furthermore, we endeavor to realize whether the semantic analysis of the concept confirms the answer to our first question or not.
 
2. Theoretical Framework
In the present paper, we will examine the issues at hand based on the viewpoint as presented in Aikhenvald (2003; 2004; 2007; 2012) regarding “evidentiality” and the perspective of Tabataba'i (2016) concerning “mood”. According to Aikhenvald’s view, some languages ​​have a dual system of evidentiality, and some have a hexagonal system. The representation of the concept in these languages ​​is mandatory and cannot be optionally removed. However, it seems that in recent research endeavors, various scholars have expanded this category in such a way that its representation, not only through bound morphemes, but also through other syntactic tools such as words, is also possible. In addition, it can be optional. Under such circumstances, all verbs, verbs that reflect thinking and adverbs like "probably" in English are indicative of evidentiality. Simply put, if we have such a mindset, then all languages ​​will include the concept of evidentiality. In Aikhenvald's view, such a generalization that leads to lack of transparency and a kind of ambiguity is meaningless and unscientific. According to Tabataba’i (2016), mood is one of verb forms, with the help of which the speaker expresses his or her opinion about the definite, probable, or imperative sense of the verb. In today’s Persian, the verb has three moods including indicative, subjunctive and imperative.
 
3. Research Method
In this study, the author attempts to examine, in an analytical-descriptive manner, the phenomenon of evidentiality in a general sense and specifically in Persian. The author tries to describe the attributes of evidentiality and the conditions leading to its formation, while analyzing the existence of this phenomenon in Persian, using examples based on the linguistic intuition of the writer as a speaker of Persian.
 
4. Research Findings and Discussion
Syntactically, there is no element in Persian in the form of a grammatical morpheme, as part of a closed group, which encodes the source of information. Of the three categories "aspect, mood, and tense," it is "mood" that shows the speaker's attitude toward a certain action and conveys this attitude to the listener or the audience. Therefore, if we are to examine evidentiality, that is to determine the speaker's attitude toward the type of information source that he or she describes and is in this regard, we are inevitably dealing with mood.
In Persian, changing mood satisfies changing the tense of the event, and consequently the meaning. One can confer a continuum of certainty for sentences, with a full certainty point at one end of the spectrum and a full uncertainty point at the other end. Other sentences fall between two poles. Indeed, in sentence "I saw it was raining," there is a certainty that cannot be seen in "It is probably raining." Similarly, the degree of certainty of the sentence "It is probably raining" is higher than "I dreamt it was raining." Accordingly, when the speaker is fully confident about the certainty of an event or news, he or she will generate the sentence in an indicative mood. The lower the speaker's confidence regarding the certainty of the event, the greater the probability of the statement being expressed in the subjunctive mood.
 
5. Conclusion
The present study shows that if we exclude mood from the verbs in Persian, evidentiality cannot be proposed through a semantic verifiable viewpoint. In other words, mood is regarded as the main concept while evidentiality as its subclass. Therefore, evidentiality cannot be considered disregarding "mood". Moreover, it was concluded that Persian speakers refer to the source of information not with the aid of bound morphemes or words, but rather sentences.
Understanding the speaker's attitude on the part of the audience is made on the syntagmatic axis and in the form of the whole sentence, and not merely through a particular syntactic element. Examining this concept with respect to cultural components shows that, basically, evidentiality, in languages ​​ belonging to small societies with a less advanced culture, is represented in a much more complex system comparing other languages.
 

Keywords


امیدواری، آ. و گلفام، ا. 1396. «بررسی گواه‏نمایی در زبان فارسی: رویکردی رده‏شناختی». جستارهای زبانی. 8. (1) پیاپی36: 79-99.
انوری، ح. 1381.  فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. تهران: سخن.
انوری، ح. و احمدی گیوی، ح. 1385. دستور زبان فارسی (2). تهران: فاطمی.
رضایی، و. 1393. «گواه‏نمایی در زبان فارسی امروز». پژوهش‏های زبانی. 5(1): 21-40.
طباطبائی، ع. 1395. فرهنگ توصیفی دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.
ماهوتیان، ش. 1390. دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه رده‏شناسی، ترجمۀ م. سمائی. تهران: مرکز.
Aikhenvald, A.Y. & Dixon (Eds.) 2003. Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ2003. “Evidentiality in typological perspective”. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (Eds.). Studies in Evidentiality. P. 1-31.
Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press. Inc, New York.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــ (2012). Review of Diewald & Smirnova (eds., 2010). studies in Language 36 (2). P. 431-439.
Anvari, H. 2002. Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian]
Anvari, H. and Ahmadi Givi, H. (2006). Persian Grammar (2). Tehran: Fatemi.
Bernárdez, E. 2017. “Evidentiality- A Cultural Interpretation”. In Sharifian, F. (ed.). Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Springer. P. 433-460.
Boas, F. 1911. Introduction, in F. Boas (Ed.). Handbook of American Indian Languages. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40. Pp. 5-83.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــ1938. Language, in F. Boas (ed.), General Anthropology. Boston, New York: D. C.Heath and Company, P. 124–45.
Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2006. “Korean evidenitals and assertion”, In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 105–113. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Crystal. D. 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics (5th ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
Delancey, S. 2001. “The mirative and evidentiality”. Journal of Pragmatics. 33. P. 369-382.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2003. “Evidentiality in Jarawara”, In Aikhenvald and Dixon (eds.). Studies in Evidantiality. P. 165-188.
Faller, M.T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.
Faller, M. 2006. Evidentiality above and below speech acts. Ms. http:// semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GZiZjBhO/.
Floyd, R. 1999. The Structure of Evidential Categories in Wanka Quechua. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics/University of Texas. Pp. 165-188.
Frajzyngier, Z. 1985. “Truth and the indicative sentence”, Studies in Language 9. P. 243–54.
Garrett, E.J. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Golfam, A. and Bahrami Khorshid, S. 2010. “Causation and iconicity: a cognitive approach”. Journal of Language Research Zabanpazhuhi. 1 (1). 143-166.
Haan, de F. 1999. “Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries”. Southwest Journal of Linguistics. 18(1). P. 83–101.
Hansson, I. L. 2003. “Akha”, In Thurgood, G. and LaPolla, R. J. (eds.). The Sino-Tibetan languages. London: Routledge. P. 236-252.
Jahani, C. 2000. “Expressions of indirectivity in spoken modern Persian”, In Johanson & Utas (Eds.). Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. P. 185-207.
Jakobson, R. 1957. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verbs. Cambridge: Harvard University.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــ1986. “The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah”, In Chafe and Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. P. 3–28.
Izvorski, R. 1997. “The present perfect as an epistemic modal”, In Aaron
Lawson (ed.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VII. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. P. 222-239.
Kalsang, J. G. ,M. Speas & J. de Villiers. 2013. “Direct evidentials, case, tense and aspect in Tibetan: Evidence for a general theory of the semantics of evidential”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(2). doi:10.1007/s11049-013-9193-9. P. 517–561.
Koev, T. 2011. “Evidentiality andtemporaldistance learning”, In NeilAshton,
Anca Chereches & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XXI. Ithaca,NY: CLC Publications. P. 115–134
Lazard, G. 1999. “Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?”. Linguistic Typology 3: P. 91–110.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــ 2001. “On the grammaticalization of evidentiality”. Journal of Pragmatics 33. Pp. 358–68.
Lee, J. 2011. Evidentiality and its interaction with tense: Evidence from Korean. The Ohio State University dissertation.
Mahootian, Sh. 2011. Persian (6th ed.). Mahdi Sama’i (Translation).Tehran: Markaz.
McCready, E. & Norry O. 2007. “Evidentiality, modality and probability”. Linguistics and Philosophy. 30(2). P. 147–206.
Murray, S. 2017. The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford University Press.
Omidvari, A and Golfam, A. 2017. “The Study of Evidentiality in Persian: A Typological Approach”, Language Related Research, 8, No.1 (Tome 36), 79-99.
Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sadighi, F. & R. Mobashernia 2012.” A Study of Lexical Evidentials in Modern Persian: Does Genre Matter?”. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. P. 8853- 8856.
Sauerland, U. & Schenner. M. 2007. “Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian”,
In Estela Puig-Waldmüller (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Pp. 525-539.
Schenner, M. 2008. “Double face evidentials in German”, In Alte Grønn (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12. Oslo, Norway: ILOS. P. 552–566.
Sadighi, F. & R. Mobashernia 2012. “A Study of Lexical Evidentials in Modern Persian: Does Genre Matter?”. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. 8853- 8856.
Trask, L. 1999. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge.
Trudgill, P. 2004. New-dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Utas, Bo. 2000. “Traces of Evidentiality in Classical new Persian”, In Johanson and Utas (Eds.). Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. P. 259-273.
de Villiers, J., J. Garfield, H. Gernet-Girard, T. Roeper & M. Speas. 2009. “Evidentials in Tibetan: Acquisition, semantics, and cognitive development”, In Stanka A. Fitneva&TomokoMatsui (eds.), Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development (New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 125). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. P. 29–47.