EVIDENTIALITY

Evidentiality is a set of grammatical or linguistic phenomena that indicate how the information conveyed in a statement was been obtained by the speaker. Typically, evidential systems indicate whether the information comes from 1) sensory experience (auditory or visual); 2) inference from something else, or 3) hearsay. Other evidential systems are much more complex.

In evidential languages, speakers must explicitly state the basis for their statements. In other words, they must express the kind of argument supporting their utterances.

In some languages, evidentiality is grammaticalized, that is, it corresponds to a specific grammatical category. In English, for instance, the reported event is necessarily referred to by its temporal-aspect coordinates. In evidential languages, speakers must specify how they obtained the information they are conveying has been obtained. The evidentiality subsystem of grammatical marks of is distinct from  both the modal and the temporal-aspectual systems.

Evidentiality can be regarded as a linguistically embedded argumentation, or the “grammaticalization of argumentation. » This conception of argumentation as a continuum is sometimes related to the grammar and semantics of a language, and sometimes to the grammar and semantics of discourse.

In English, where evidentiality is not grammaticalized, evidential markers or phrases are optional. Evidential sources can be expressed discursively as coordinated clauses or as the head of clauses.

Peter is at home.

One can hear him. I hear that Peter is at home.
They told me that Peter is at home.
I read that Peter is at home.
I assume Peter is at home.

Evidentiality can be expressed using modals. In the statement “Peter is at home” for example, the information about Peter’s whereabouts is given categorically, and is supported by the speaker’s highest degree of certainty on an epistemic scale ranging from doubt to certainty. From an evidential perspective, the statement implies that the speaker has some direct evidence supporting the claim, for example « I just left him. »

“Peter should be at home by now” communicates the same information but it is expressed with less certainty. From an evidential point of view, the statement implies, for example, “I have no direct categorical evidence for what I’m saying. However, based on Peter’s usual habits, I infer that he’s at home.”

The following example is taken from Ducrot (1975). In “Pierre doit avoir reçu ma lettre” (“Peter must have received my letter”), the information is supported only by the common knowledge of the usual delivery times. The following case is different:

Eh bien, je crois que (on dirait que) Pierre a reçu ma lettre!
Well, I believe that Peter has received my letter.
Well, Pierre seems to have gotten my letter.

Here the implication is that the same information has been inferred from a different source. For example, Pierre’s behavior changed in a way that could only be explained by the content of the letter. For instance, the letter informed Pierre of a disciplinary warning, and his behavior clearly changed.