Turkic indirectives

Finite verb inflections for evidential categories and source identification in Turkish agrammatic Broca's aphasia

“…The reference point in evidential verb forms is established by fixing the evaluation time as speech time 6 (Enç, 2004, p. 208). Furthermore, this characterization is in line with Johanson's (2000Johanson's ( , 2006 analysis of aspectual-temporal features of Turkish inferential and reportative forms (the 'indirective' in his terms). He argues that these forms derive their relevance solely from the speakers' viewpoint, possibly through the observation of results, traces, or report about them (Johanson, 2006, p. 78).…”

“…The direct perception --DI and the inferential --mIş are considered to have temporal/aspectual and evidential (as well as modal) functions. However, a number of studies have shown that the reportative --(I)mIş behaves differently from the inferential --mIş, 5 and does not mark tense/aspect but only evidential category of reportative (Aksu-Koç and Slobin, 1986;Aksu-Koç, 1988;Aksu-Koç, 2000;Aksu-Koç et al, 2009;Csató , 2000;Gül, 2009;Johanson, 2000Johanson, , 2006. Turkish evidentials have been classified under modality, as a category of epistemic implications for the speaker's degree of certainty about the proposition asserted (e.g., Aksu-Koç, 1988;Slobin and Aksu, 1982) in close relationship to the epistemic modality (see also: Chafe and Nichols, 1986;Givó n, 1982;Palmer, 2001).…”

“…While a great deal of recent accounts advocate that they are different structures (Aksu-Koç and Slobin, 1986;Aksu-Koç, 1988;Aksu-Koç, 2000;Aksu-Koç et al, 2009;Csató , 2000;Gül, 2009;Johanson, 2000Johanson, , 2006, some others treat them as the same. It cannot be avoided that they differ in terms of evidential meanings.…”

“Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects

“…(Slobin & Aksu-Koç 1982: 192) DeLancey follows Slobin & Aksu-Koç (1982 29 in suggesting that the use of mIş to mark inference or hearsay are extensions of the morpheme's basic meaning to mark surprise. Lazard (1999) and Johanson (2000) hold that all three uses are instances of a larger category, which they refer to respectively as "mediative" and "indirective".…”

“…One may tentatively conclude that Hare, Sunwar, Korean, and Kalasha, like Tibetan, have a sensory evidential. The same analysis is inappropriate for Turkish, which is probably better described as having a "mediative" (Lazard 1999) or "indirective" (Johanson 2000).…”