Universal 1654: visual > non-visual > inferential > quotative, OR direct > indirect
- Original
- The Evidentiality Hierarchy:
visual > non-visual > inferential > quotative, OR direct > indirect.The presence of evidentials encoding direct evidence, such as visuals and sensory evidentials, entails the presence of indirect evidentials, such as quotatives and (some) inferentials.
- Standardized
- IF there are evidentials encoding direct evidence, THEN there are evidentials for indirect evidence.
IF there is an evidential category for visual evidence, THEN there is evidential category for non-visual evidence.
IF there is an evidential category for inferential evidence, THEN there is evidential category for quotative evidence. - Keywords
- evidentiality hierarchy
- Domain
- inflection, syntax, semantics
- Type
- implicational hierarchy
- Status
- achronic
- Quality
- statistical
- Basis
- 30 languages from all areas of the world where evidentiality is well-established as a grammatical category, including Archi (NE Caucasian), Dolakha Newari (Tibeto-Burman), Ocotepec Mixtec (Oto-Manguean), Mam (Mayan), Basque (isolate), Paumari (Arawakan), Urubu-Kaapor (Kariri-Tupi), Yukaghir (isolate), Dutch (Germanic, IE), Kalmyk (Mongolian), Abkhaz (N Caucasian), Limbu (Tibeto-Burman), Yup’ik (Eskimo-Aleut), Cayuga (Iroquoian), Kwakiutl (Wakashan), Patwin (Wintuan (=Copehan)), Lega (Central Bantu, Niger-Congo), Turkish (Turkic), SE Tepehuan (Uto-Aztecan), Mingrelian (S Caucasian), Hixkaryana (Carib), Iquito (Zaparoan), Akha (Lolo-Burmese), Hupa (Athabaskan), Maricopa, Hualapai (both Yuman), Tuyuca (Tucanoan), Fasu (Trans-New Guinea), Kashaya (Hokan)
- Source
- De Haan 1996
- Counterexamples
- Hualapai (Yuman), and possibly Hupa (Athabaskan), which possess direct evidentials but no (grammaticalized) quotative evidentials. Apalai (Carib) has visual and inferential evidentials but lacks non-visual sensory evidential (this may be due to insufficient information in grammar) (De Haan 1996).
