You are on page 1of 44

The Fusion of Tense and Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq

Jenny Loughran Department of Linguistics McGill University

December, 2012

A submitte to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the re!uirements of the egree of Master of Arts in Linguistics


"irst an foremost, # $oul li%e to than% my language consultant Janine Metallic, $ho gifte me $ith the %no$le ge of her language& 'er e(citement about un erstan ing Mi)gma! $as inspirational an # am prou to have $or%e $ith such an impassione in ivi ual& # o$e tremen ous than%s to my supervisor, *rofessor Jessica +oon, $ho provi e invaluable %no$le ge an aca emic support throughout the $riting process, but also en less patience an support& ,ithout her gui ance this paper $oul not have been possible& # $oul also li%e to than% the Linguistics epartment an Mcgill University, especially *rofessor Lisa -ravis $ho, espite an incre ibly busy sche ule, al$ays foun time for a meeting& #n a ition, # $oul li%e to than% +onnor .uinn for sharing his %no$le ge of Mi)gma! an Algon!uian languages "inally, #) li%e to than% my frien s an family& ,ithout all of you cheering me on from the si e lines none of this $oul have been possible&

List of Abbreviations
A++ AU/ +0#1 D#2 D#23+-

accusative au(iliary coinci e irect irect evi ential emphatic imperfect in irect evi ential inverse hearsay evi ential locative ob8ect obviation *ast 9 eferential evi ential past 9 irect evi ential past 9in irect evi ential past 9personal e(perience evi ential perfective personal e(perience evi ential plural local :1 ; 2 person< plural non=local :>r person< plural possessive refle(ive negation non=visual evi ential singular sub8ect visual evi ential

#M* #1D#2 #14 '3A25A6 L0+ 07J 074 *A5-D3" *A5-D#2 *A5-'3A25A6 *A5-#1D#2 *A5-*325&3/ *32" *325&3/ *L *LL0+AL *L101=L0+AL *055 23"L 13G 1014#5 5G 5U7 4#5


The Fusion Tense and Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq

Jenny Loughran

1 ! "ntroduction
-he focus of this stu y is on ho$ spea%ers of Mi)gma! e(press past=tense an source of information, referre to in the literature as evi entiality& 2itter an ,iltsch%o, henceforth 2;,, argue that Algon!uian languages lac% a -* :200?, 200@<& #nglis :2002, 200A< ma%es this claim specifically about Mi)gma!, ma%ing the claim that $hat have been glosse by some :"i elholtB 1@CD< as past=tense mar%ers are actually evi ential morphemes& #t $ill be argue here that these morphemes enco e both tense an evi entiality an the substantive content of #1"L is tense& Accor ing to 2;,)s Parametric Substantiation Parameter, given belo$ in :1<, one imension along $hich languages vary is in $hat functional category is foun at the hea s a sentence& :1< The Parametric Substantiation Hypothesis :2itter an ,iltsch%o 200@E 1?A< -he substantive content of a given functional category is sub8ect to parametric variation an is constraine only by the universally etermine core function of that category&

2;, i entify three potential categories for #1"L substantiationE tense, location, an person& 3ach system has the same basic structure, iffering only in $hat category embo ies #1"L, an e(ample of each is given belo$& :2< Tense anchored a& Dom laughs b& Dom laughe F=pastG F9pastG


Spatially Anchored :a apte from 2itter an ,iltsch%o 200?E >AA< a& li !$)eyile( tH=tl)I F9 istalG :'al%omelem 5alish< AU/ ance he )'e isJ$as ancing :there<) b& i !$)eyile( tH=tl)I ance he )'e isJ$as ancing :here<)

F= istalG


Participant Anchored :"rantB 1@@1E ?1< a& n#itsi%a K %ominna=$a n=ita K LM 1=very&love=>5G 1= aughter )# love my aughter)

:7lac%foot< F9spea%erG


k#NOPNQKQRSNLLMTUM nTNOKLM 1=very&love=>5G 1= aughter )6ou love my aughter)

F9a resseeG

2;,)s claim that Algon!uian languages lac% an inflectional tense no e an that an utterance is anchore via participant base on an analysis of 7lac%foot, a +entral Algon!uian language genetically affiliate to Mi)gma!& *art of the evi ence that 7lac%foot lac%s a -* no e lies in the temporal ambiguity that arises bet$een past an non=past interpretations& "or e(ample, :?< can be interprete as either past or present tense& :?< a& tsel VEme( 1sg $al%ing )# amJ$asJ$ill be $al%ing :a apte from ,iltsc%o 200>E CDW<

#nglis argues along the same lines as 2;,, positing that Mi)gma! is an evidential language that e(presses the Xposition of the speech acts, participants relative to ho$ they came to X%no$ ofY or Xe(perienceY the event :200AE >@C<Y rather than tense& 1either 2;, nor #nglis)s argument is that spea%ers have no $ay of conveying notions of past or present, only that the inflectional no e oes not represent the grammatical category tense& #t $ill be argue in section /&/ ho$ever that Mi)gma! is not a tenseless language on the groun s that the temporal ambiguity in :?< oes not arise, an that the morphemes -p'n, -s'n, an -s'p'n enco e both F9pastG an source of information :i&e& evi entiality<& -he absence of these morphemes results in F=pastG interpretation& -hese morphemes $ill be referre to as tense an evi entiality :-3< mar%ers for the remain er of the paper& -he follo$ing e(amples are a apte from #nglis :200AE >@W< an :C< a& pemeleg=ap $al%&>=*A55Jhe $al%e & :# sa$ it<

emonstrates -3 system foun in Mi)gma!& b& pemleg=as $al%&>=*A55Jhe $al%e & :# hear about it<


pemleg=as)p $al%&>=*A55Jhe $al%e & :Di n)t sheZ<


-he claim that these morphemes represent both tense an evi entiality is supporte by the follo$ing facts about the languageE 1& 2& >& A& -here is no temporal ambiguity in constructions that have evi entials -he evi entials must be use in escribing past=tense events -he absence of the tense mar%ers unambiguously results in a non=past interpretation 5ource of information must obligatorily be e(presse only in the past tense 2

?& -he evi ential suffi(es are incompatible $ith temporal a verbs that e(press the present or future tense suggesting that they carry a past tense meaning& A secon purpose of the stu y is to e(amine ho$ the -3 mar%ers fit into the mo el of evi entiality propose by 5peas :200Ab[ 200D< in $hich evi entiality is a type of person agreement&& UtiliBing the analysis of person features evelope by 'arley an 2itter :2002< 5peas is able to pre ict the inventory of the $orl s evi ential systems& -his mo el, ho$ever, oes not account for e(ample in :Cc< ,$hich #nglis refers to as a deferential evi ential& ,e $ill see in section ? that the eferential evi ential can easily fall un er 5peas mo el if $e slightly e(pan it to use a secon feature escribe by 'arley an 2itter F9J= A resseeG& # $ill follo$ 5peas :200Aa[ 200Ab[ 200D< in her use of terminology an in efining each categoryE personal e(perience, irect, in irect, hearsay& -hese are intro uce in the follo$ing subsection&



Languages that grammaticaliBe evi entials use a e icate set of morphemes that e(press the source of the spea%ers %no$le ge& Accor ing to 5peas :200Aa[ 200Ab[ 200D<, all evi entials fall into one of four basic types& -his section summariBes the four evi entials categories& 5pea%ers use Personal experience evi entials to in icate that they %no$s of a verb event through his or her internal e(perience& -his by efinition can only be %no$n to the spea%er& -his is emonstrate belo$ in -ibetan& :W< bo =la g=yag yod :a apte from Garrett 2001 in 5peas 200AaE 2C1< -ibet=L0+ ya% *325&3/ )-here are ya%s in -ibetJ My ya% are in -ibetJ# have ya% in -ibet Direct evidentials are use $hen the spea%er $itnesses the event using the physical senses, usually visually or aurally, although some languages $ill also use a irect visual to refer to touch an smell& *ersonal e(perience an irect evi entials iffer in that irect evi ence is ac!uire in the physical $orl & -his means that in principle the evi ence is available to anyone $ho shares the same eictic sphere as the spea%er. *ersonal 3(perience involves evi ence only available in the spea%ers o$n internal self& -he follo$ing are e(amples of irect evi entials from -ucano& :D< a& i\y] $a)]re yaha=$mi og fish steal=4#5 )-he og stole the fish) :# sa$ it< :a apte from Ai%enval 200AE ?2<



i\y] $a)]re yaha%&'( og fish steal=1014#5 )-he og stole the fish) :# hear the noise<

ndirect evidentials are use $hen a spea%er believes an utterance to be true base on a combination of %no$n facts about the $orl in combination $ith their o$n internal inference :5peas 200Aa[ 200Ab[ 200D< An in irect evi ential means that there is no evi ence that irectly implies a proposition to be true, but the spea%er)s uses there internal=processing to arrive at a conclusion& -hese evi entials are often translate into 3nglish using epistemic must. -he follo$ing e(ample is from +hero%ee :a apte from Ai%enval 200>E 2W<& :@< guso=^i u=$onis=e)i Mus%ogee=at sJhe=#1D#2 )5he spo%e at Mus%ogee) :# %ne$ she planne to spea% on 5un ay& #t is no$ Mon ay, an # assume she spo%e as planne &< Hearsay evidentials convey the message that the source of information is outsi e the current iscourse conte(t, usually reporte by someone outsi e the current eictic sphere but can also be use to imply common %no$le ge or to mar% a narrative& -hey are often glosse as )so 'm told )or )so they say'. -he follo$ing e(ample is from 1ava8o :Mi get 1@@DE 1@D in 5peas 200AbE 2C>< :10< -__ _yV Vgi yVl%)i *in+ 8ust nearby hill=e(ten s '3A25A6 )1ot far a$ay there $as a ri ge) -he prece ing subsection briefly intro uce the terminology nee e to e(amine the -3 system in Mi)gma!& 5ection 2 provi es bac%groun on the Mi)gma! language& *articular attention is pai to its verb stems an post=verbal inflection& #n section >, 2itter an ,iltsch%o)s Parametric Substantiation Hypothesis is loo%e at in more etail& 5ection A emonstrates that Mi)gma! has a -*& 5ection A escribes 5peas mo el of evi entiality an conclu es in section C& in 5ection ? this mo el is applie to Mi)gma!& -he paper

, ! The mor-hology of Mi'gmaq .and other Algonquian/ verbs

Mi)gma! is an 3astern Algon!uian language escen e from *roto=Algon!uian :'e$son 1@WAE >0D<& -he ma8ority of the literature on Algon!uian languages has focuse on the +entral Algon!uian family of languages such as 08ib$e :i&e& Mathieu 200D, 2ogers 1@WD, 4alentine 2001<, +ree :i&e& +oo% 200D, ,olfart 1@W1, 1@@C< or 7lac%foot :i&e& "rantB ; 2ussell 1@@?, 'arley an 2itter 2000, *roul( A

1@D@, 200?<& 0ther 3astern Algon!uian language that have receive some attention are *assamo!uo :7ruening 2001< an *enobscot :.uinn 200C<& Li%e other Algon!uian languages, Mi)gma! is a highly inflectional language that has a relatively free $or or er& -his paper focuses on three morphemes, -p'n, -s'n, an -s'p'n, use to e(press both tense an information source in Mi)gma!& -he claim that the evi ential is fuse $ith tense in contrary to the analysis presente by #nglis :2002, 200A<& 7ase on the criteria for filling the substantive content in 2;,)s Parametric Substantiation Hypothesis $e $ill see that Mi)gma! isplays the properties of a tense anchoring language& -he follo$ing section $ill briefly escribe the Mi)gma! verb an its relevant inflection& *articular attention $ill be pai to highlighting %ey ifferences bet$een Mi)gma! an other, better= stu ie Algon!uian languages&


The 0erb 1tem

-he formation of the verb stem in Mi)gma! is one through syntactic concatenation using a combination of in ivi ual morphemes %no$n by Algon!uinists as initials, me ials an finals :7rittain 2001[ 200>[ #nglis 1@DD<& -he follo$ing subsection briefly e(amines the general structure of Algon!uian verbs& 7ecause Mi)gma! is so un erstu ie , e(amples from other Algon!uian languages are use to supplement any gaps in ata& 7rittain :2001[ 200>< provi es an in= epth analysis of the morphosynta( of of the verb across the Algon!uian spectrum& 5he proposes the follo$ing template :200>E>2<& #n this structure, only the initials an finals are compulsory parts of the verb& :11< -emplate *reverb *hrase *reverb 4erb 5tem ,or 7oun ary Left 3 ge v* nitial `* v !inals n* `1* `1 n #edials "


0erb Finals specific meaning to

4erb finals are either concrete or abstract& Abstract finals carry no salient meaning of their o$n an are verbaliBers similar to 3nglish 'be'. +oncrete finals, on the other han , a the verb& :12< a& b& e)pit '$oman' e)pite$it e)pit=ew=it $oman=F"2AL=> )5he becomes a $oman) Medials :a apte from #nglis 1@DDE 100<


Me ials are the only optional morpheme in the verb stem& -ypically the me ial is a nominal an occurs in one of three types of verbal constructions, those $ith incorporate nouns, nominal classifiers an environmental me ials& -he follo$ing e(amples are from 08ib$e :a apte from 4alentine 2001E >>1=>>2<& :1>< ncorporated %oun &=mii8iim=J naa=8mii8m=e fetch=foo =v& :1A< 'lassifiers J=aa%=J gn$=aa%=Bi be long=branches=v& :1?< (nvironmental J=aagonag=J sh=aanag=aa ,14 0erb "nitials

)foo ) )fetch foo )

)$oo en poles, branches) )be a long stic%=li%e ob8ect)

in icates sno$ con ition )be eep in sno$)

4erb initials are the only part of the Algon!uian verb that nee s to be phonologically salient this means that a minimal verb in Algon!uian languages appears to be pro uce as a bare initial, but is, in fact, an initial an phonologically null final& ('pit in e(ample :12b< above is an e(ample of a morpheme in initial position& #nitials in Algon!uian can license meaning associate $ith nouns, prepositions an a 8ectives in languages such as 3nglish&

, 1 5 6reverbs *reverbs are a itional morphemes use to e(press various types of meaning inclu ing moo , irectionality, relation, aspect, manner, !uality an !uantity :see 4alentine 2001E 1?A=1W1 for an in epth iscussion of preverbs in 08ib$e<& *reverbs are often foun in initial position& An e(ample is the irectional preverb pem= )by)& -his morpheme is foun in the initial position $ith the verb pema'- as in pema'lul )# carry you)& 7rittain argues that preverbs are lo$ere into initial position ue to a re!uirement that the left e ge of the verb stem be fille $ith phonetic content :200>E 2>0<& *reverbs are also )stac%able)& #t is generally agree upon that verb stem scope operates from a left$ar :1C< irection :Go ar 1@DD[ 1@@0[ Dahlstrom 1@@1[ 4alentine 2002[ 7rittain 200A<& :Mi)gma!&org< getu =po!8u =mamuni =espi =inn =uis=it $ant =start =high,very =level =people =lang =>5G )5Jhe $ants to start to spea% Mi)gma! at a very high level)


Mi'gmaq 0erbal "nflection

-he most obvious ifference bet$een Mi)gma! an other Algon!uian languages is the use of person suffixes rather than prefixes& Accor ing to "i elholtB, the in epen ent or er in Mi)gma! is escen e from proto=Algon!uian con8unct or er $here $e see the use of person suffi(es in 08ib$e or +ree& -he use of the person prefi(es in 7lac%foot an other Algon!uian languages is significant because it is these morphemes that 2;, claim substantiates #1"L in participant=anchore languages& "or this reason, $e $ill briefly loo% at these prefi(es an their use in languages that have them& ,e $ill then loo% at the Mi)gma! suffi(es& -he prefi(es of the in epen ent or er are clearly seen in the intransitive e(amples belo$ from +ree $hich mar% the sub8ect of the verb& :1W< 7ree :a apte from ,olfart 1@W>E >@@< a& n=imaaciin b& k=imaaciin 15G=hunt 25G=hunt )# hunt) )you hunt)


m=aa)cii$ >5G=hunt )5Jhe hunts)

*refi(es are also use in transitive constructions, $here they mar% either sub8ect or ob8ect& -hey are also use in possessive constrictions to mar% the possessor& 'ere are a fe$ e(amples from 7lac%foot a apte from "rantB :1@@1E ?1 in 2itter an ,iltsch%o 200@E 1W<&


8lackfoot a& n#itsi%a K %ominna=$a n=ita K LM 1=very&love=>5G 1= aughter )# love my aughter) c&


QTNOPNQKQRSNLLMTUM 1=very&love=>5G )6ou love my aughter)

LTNOKLM 1= aughter

aROTNNQUKQRSNSSTUM aLTRbQcdTUM RTOKLTN >=very&love=>5G 1=son=>5G >= aughter=074 )'er aughter loves my son)

#n the intransitive e(amples above the sub8ect is mar%e on the verb using the appropriate prefi(& #n transitive constructions both the sub8ect an the ob8ect are mar%e on the verb, one as a prefi( an one as a suffi(& ,hich participant is foun in $hich position is etermine by the participants position along $hat is referre to as the Al)on*uian Hierarchy :see 7ruening 200?, Jolley 1@D> among others for iscussion<& -his hierarchy favours secon person prefi( morphology over first person an first person prefi( morphology over thir person :see Macauly 200? for a iscussion of prominence hierarchies across Algon!uian languages<& 0bserve the pattern of person mar%ing in the follo$ing e(ample from 08ib$e& :1@< 9*ibwe a& g$aabam g=$aabam=e 2=see=1 )6ou see me) & n$aabmig n=$abm=ig& >=see=#14 )5Jhe sees me) $$aabmaan w=$aabm=aa=n >=see=D#2=074 )'e sees him :obv<) :a apte from 4alentine 2001E 2C@< n$aabmaa n=$aabm=aa 1=see=D#2 )# :sg< see himJher) g$aabmig g=$aabm=ig 1=see=#14 )'e sees me)


g$aabmin g=$aabm=in 2=see=#14 )# see you)



g$aabmaa f& g=biEin=aa 2=see=D#2 )6ou see him) $$aabmigoon w=$aabm=igoo=n >=see=#14=074 )'e :obv< sees him)



7y comparing :1@a< to :1@b< $e can see that in both cases the secon person is mar%e using an affi(, regar less of its role as sub8ect or ob8ect& #n :1@b< an a itional morpheme, %no$n as inverse morphology mar%s the reversal of the agentJgoal relation& ,e see the same in :1@e=f< $ith thir person& 5imilarly, $e can see by comparing the thir person suffi(es in :1@c= < that the first person is mar%e in constructions involving the thir person regar less of agency& "inally, in :1@g=h< the thir person prefi( surfaces along $ith an a itional morpheme mar%ing obviation& D

As previously state , the Mi)gma! in epen ent or er is escen e from the proto=Algon!uian con8unct or er resulting in the use use of person suffi(es rather than prefi(es1& -his is sho$n belo$2& :20< Mi'gmaq "ntransitive a& pemig=i gro$=1 )# gro$) b& pemig=in c& gro$=2 )you :sg< gro$) :a apte from "i elholtB 1@CDE ?2C< pemig=it gro$=> )he gro$s)

:21< sho$s transitive en ings in Mi)gma!& +omparing to the 08ib$e e(ample in :1@<, $e see that the person suffi(es are !uite ifferent from the prefi(es& -he Mi)gma! transitive en ings are more comple( than the 08ib$e prefi(es, an there are no clear signs of a hierarchy>& :21< Mi'gmaq transitive a& pema)lin pema)l=i#n carry=1=2 )you carry me) & pema)lit pema)l=i#t carry=1=> sJhe carries me pema)latl & pema)l=a=tl 5Jhe carry=>=074 )5Jhe carries himJher


pema)lul pema)l=ul carry=2:=1< )# carry you) pema)l't pema)l=ul='t carry=2=> 6ou carry himJher)


pema)l'g pema)l='g carry=>:=1< )# :sg< carry him pema)lit pema)l=ul#it carry=2=> )he carries you)




-hese transitive en ings are actually a comple( of morphemes that mar% both the sub8ects an the ob8ect in epen ently, as $ell as number an obviation& 3ach person is represente person an argument are given belo$ in -able 2& ifferently epen ing on $hether they are the sub8ect or ob8ect of the verb& -he un erlying morphemes for each

1 0ne place in $hich Mi)gma! has retaine the use of prefi(es to mar% the sub8ect& +ompare the follo$ing formsE
Mi'gmaq 6ossessive :a apte from "i elholtB 1@CDE AWW< a& )nt=e)pite=m b& )gt=e)pite=m c& ugt=e)pite=m=l 1=$oman=*055 2=$oman=*055 >=$oman=*055=074 My $ife :lit& $oman< 6our $ife 'isJher $ife 2 "or space an comple(ity consi erations only constructions involving singular agents an goals are sho$n& > 1ote that un er certain circumstances phonological re uction occurs an first=person sub8ects appear unmar%e

Table , Mi'gmaq transitive singular -erson -aradigm *erson 1 2 > Agent =iA =n =t Goal =i:)li< =ul:n< =a

-he ob8ect is mar%e closest to the verb an in singular constructions, is follo$e by sub8ect agreement& :22< a& pema)l verb stem =i =n ob8ect sub8ect

*lurality a s to the comple(ity of the transitive en ings by enco ing the plurality of local participants rather than the sub8ect?& :a apte from "i elholtB 1@CDE C01< :2>< a& pema)lieg pema)l=i=eg carry=107J=*L you :sgJpl< carry us


pema)lulneg pema)l=uln=eg carry=207J= *L $e carrie you :pl<



pema)lugg pema)l=ug=g carry=12= *L $e:inc< carrie himJher pema)lugsieg pema)l=ugsi=eg carry 07J&*L =1> he carries us :e(cl<


pema)l)g)t pema)l)=g=)t carry=1>=>5U7 ),e :e(< carry him)


pema)lugsi)g$ pema)l=ugsi=)g$ carry= 07J&*L =12 )'e carries us :inc<




pema)lo! h& pema)l=o! carry=2*L )6ou :pl< carrie him)

pema)l=ugsi=o! pema)l =ugsi=o! carry= 07J&*L =2 )'e carries you :pl<


'ere $e have ob8ect agreement follo$e by a morpheme mar%ing a local, plural participant& 1ote that in :2>g=h< 2person plural is =o*, $hile =+i,e) mar%e first person plural :2>a=c,f<& #n :2>c= < $e have agreement in icating $hether the first person sub8ect is inclusive or e(clusive& -he inclusiveJe(clusive istinction is not mar%e in :2>a=b< because the language oes not allo$ a 12f2J2f12 combination& "inally, in :2>e=h< $e see that all local plural participant ob8ects are mar%e using the morpheme -u)si.
A Due to a phonological shortening rule, the sub8ect =i is roppe $or finally& :see "i elholtB 1@CD ch& ? for iscussion< ? Local here refers to the concept use by Algon!uinists in istinguishing those involve in the communicative conte(t :first an secon person< from those $ho are not :thir person<



a& b&

pema)l verb stem pema verb stem

=uln =eg =ob8ect =plurallocal =ugsi =ob8ect&*L

FLocal :*lural< 5ub8ectG


=eg F1on=Local 5ub8ectG =pluralloca

,hen there is a non=local plural participant, the plurality of the non=local actor surfaces $or finally& -his morphology is in complementary istribution $ith morphology in icating obviation& :2?< pema)li8igC pema)l=i=8=ig carry=107J=>5U7=*L )5Jhe carries me)


Mi)gma! also has inflectional morphemes mar%ing negation :2C<& -hese suffi(es are locate bet$een the ob8ect an the sub8ectJlocal plural mar%er& -his morpheme obligatorily co=occurs $ith a negative preverbal mar%er mu. :2C< a& mu pema)liueg neg pema)l=i#u=eg carry=107J=13G=*L you :sgJpl< on)t carry us


mu mu neg

pema)lulneg pema)l=uln=u=eg carry=207J= 13G=*L )$e on)t carry you :pl<


-he -3 mar%ers that are the focus of this stu y surface bet$een the sub8ectJlocal plural position an any non=local plural or obviative inflection& :2W< c& ela)lulno!op ela)l=uln=o!=op bring=207J=2*L=*A5# brought you:pl< : irect<


ela)lsnog ela)l =a=sn=ig bring=>07J=*A5- = *L = )'e brought them) :# hear about<

#1D#2 101 L0+AL

-here are three -3 morphemes in Mi)gma!, the istribution of $hich is etermine by not only the source of information :i&e& irect or in irect<, but also by person& -he istribution of the -3 mar%ers is iscusse at length in section ?& -able > summariBes their istribution&

C Mi)gma! has a palataliBation rule that transforms the thir person sub8ect -t into -- $hen bet$een to high front vo$els&


Table 3: The distribution of Evidentials -3 morpheme 5pea%er has irect evi ence 6artici-ant; 1 =p)n =s)n s)p)n

5pea%er has in irect evi ence 6artici-ant 1


.uestions 6artici-ant






,nd ( ` `

3rd ( ` (

` ( (

` ( `D

` ( (

( ` (

( ( `

( ` (

( ` (

-his section)s goal $as to escribe the structure of the verb an the positioning of inflectional morphemes in or er to facilitate the investigation into the -3 system in Mi)gma!& -he structure given belo$ sums up $hat $e have seen so far& -he follo$ing subsection $ill focus on the -3 morphemes relevant to the analysis presente in section ?& :2D< F#nitial :Me ial< "inalG = 07J = :13G< = 5U7JJ*L 4erb 5tem

=-3 = *L



, 3 The form of TE markers

3ach -3 morpheme has t$o possible forms -p or p'n, -s or -s'n, an -s'p or -s'p'n& ,hich form surfaces epen s on the phonological environment in $hich it is foun & ,hen the morphemes are $or final the final -n is roppe & -he e(ception to this rule is $hen embe e un er another verb& -his in icating that in or er for the -n to surface the verb must be clause final& :2@< a tlu$ens ta)!am =pn it=seems hit =*A5)#t seems sJhe hit :past< himJher)


tlu$ens Ma)li ta)!am =pn it=seems Mary hit *A5)Mary must have hit *ierre )


*iel =al *ierre=074

Accor ing to "i elholtB, the =n is roppe because of a general ban on en ing $or s $ith a =p9n :1@CDE 1D1<, ho$ever, $e can tell from the e(amples above that this is not entirely correct an that the -n surfaces on the verb $hen embe e &

W #n intransitive constructions, participant refers to sub8ect& #n transitive construction both the sub8ect an the ob8ect are participants& #n these cases, the presence of a 2n person participant results in 2n person morphology& D 2esults in tag=!uestion




me)te)it)p me)te)=i=t=)p struc%=1=2=*A5)6ou:sg< struc% me)



me)te)ip me)te)=i=p struc%=1=*A5)'e struc% me)



me)t)e=m=ap me)t)e=m=a=p struc%=ian=>=*A5)# struc% it:inanimate<)


1ote that the -p.n cluster is also allo$e in other positions, such as in the e(amples in :>1< belo$ an that this rule is specific to -pn- clusters an that -p can occur $or finally $ith other nasals :>2<, an n can occur $or finally after other consonants, :>><& :>1< :>2< :>>< a& a& a& $apn$apn)ia! )Da$n) )gte)ypm )6our tape) nitn )My nostril) b& $igatign )Letter) c& mg)sn )5hoe) b& gapn)o)l )Government)

As mentione , the -n of a -3 suffi( occurs $hen it is follo$e by another suffi(, as in e(ample :>A<& *lural an obviate construction also appear to be e(ceptions as $ell, ho$ever, the final -n in these constructions results from phonological assimilation that result in the pro uction of a long consonant& -he relevant operations are sho$n belo$ in :>?< an :>C<& :>A< )& /T plural A)reement &-l& 0 1n2 :>?< a& pisgit b& )+oo%ie) 3bviate &-l& 0 1n2 me)ta)tl me)te)=a)t=l stri%e=>=074 )5he stri%es him) pisgit=l coo%ie=*L )+oo%ies) b& c& me)t)mapnn me)te)=m=a=pn=l stri%e=inan=>=*A5- =*L )# struc% them :inanimate<)


me)te)sg)=-n=ig stri%e&>f2sg=*A5- =*L )they struc% you)





me)ta)pnn me)te)=a)t=pn=l stri%e=>=*A5- =074 )5he struc% him)


-he resulting geminate is then re uce to a long nasal& -his is etectable through a change in intonation :.uinn p&c&<& #t is possible that the -3 mar%ers can be further ecompose into evi ential 9 past, $ith the -p, 1>

-s, s'p mar%ing evi ence source an -n mar%ing tense& At present, there is no efinite analysis to prove that this is not the case& 'o$ever, the t$o halves of each morpheme appear to behave as a single phonological unit, in icate by the fact that the phonological constraint against -pn $or =finally oes not hol else$here, nor oes it hol bet$een p an other nasals or n an other consonants& -he purpose of this section $as to give an a e!uate bac%groun of the Mi)gma! verbal an inflectional system to assist in the analysis of the -3 system presente in sections A an ?& -he follo$ing section revie$s 2;,)s hypothesis that #1"L is sub8ect to parametric variation&

The variation of "2FL and 6artici-ant anchoring

As mentione in the intro uction, 2;, hypothesiBe that the content of #1"L is sub8ect to parametric variation& 2;, i entify three potential categories for substantiation, although they ac%no$le ge that there may be other possibilities& -he three i entifie by the authors are tense, location, an person& 3ach system has the same basic structure, only iffering in $hat category embo ies #1"L& -he structure of tense=anchore 3nglish an location=anchore 'al%omelem 5alish are re ra$n belo$ from 2;,:200@E1?W<& :>W< a& #* Utt=time #) #1"L F9J= coinG 3nglish= -ense base 4* 3v=time 4 b& Utt=loc #1"L F9J= coinG 3v=loc #* #) 4* 4

'al%omelem= Location base

#n tense base systems li%e 3nglish, #1"L serves to anchor the utterance time :Utt=time< to event time :3v=time<& #f the t$o o not coinci e, then the utterance receives a past=tense interpretation& #f they o coinci e, the utterance is interprete as non=past :ibi E 1?C<& #n languages in $here #1"L is substantiate by person, the anchoring of the event is one through participants an in icates $hether the utterance participants :Utt=per< coinci e $ith those involve in the iscourse conte(t& #n these participant systems person mar%ing represent the substantive content of #1"L an acts as the functional e!uivalent of tense :#bi E 1W0<&


:>D< Utt=per

#* #) 4* 3v=per 7lac%footE *erson 2;, claim that 7lac%foot has a *erson=no e rather than a tense=no e base on the fact that a 4

#1"L F9J= coinG

clause unmar%e for tense is ambiguous bet$een past or present interpretation an a lac% of structural case effects :i&e& a lac% of morphological case, no A=bin ing, an absence of case motivate A= movement such as lac% of passiviBation see 2itter an 2osen 200? for iscussion<& -he evi ence for person substantiating #1"L lies in the uni*ue an obli)atory nature of person prefi(es& 0bligatory refers to person prefi(es being re!uire in all in epen ent an con8unct clauses, :an a lac% of person mar%ing in imperatives an sub8unctives :#bi E 20<<& *erson prefi(es@ emonstrate uni*ueness[ only one person prefi( is allo$e , even if both utterance participants are involve in the event :>@< an the prefi( uni!uely mar%s person, not person an number or person an argument& :>@< a& %itsi%_%omimmo%i %it=ii%=a%omimm=o%i 2=very=love=2E1 g6ou love me&h %itsi%_%omimmo %it=ii%=a%omimm=o 2=very=loveE1f2 g# love you&h init%itsi%_%omimmo nit=%it=ii%=a%omimm=o 1=2=very=love=1f2 init%itsi%_%omimmo nit=%it=ii%=a%omim 1=2=very=love1f2 :a apte from 2itter an ,iltsch%o 200@E 1WC<



init%itsi%_%omimmo%i nit=%it=ii%=a%omimm=o%i 1=2=very=love=2f1 i%itnitsi%_%omimmo%i %it=nit=ii%=a%omimm=o%i 2=1=very=love=2f1




7ase on 7lac%foot)s genetic affiliation $ith Mi)gma! $e might e(pect the language to lac% a tense no e an have an #1"L substantiate $ith person& -his correspon s $ith #nglis)s claim that Mi)gma! is
@ 1ote that 7lac%foot still ma%es use of person suffi(es $hich 2;3 argue are a istinct set of person mar%ers :see 2;, 200E 20=2><


not a time=aspect base system li%e 3nglish& Li%e 2;,)s analysis of 7lac%foot, #nglis ma%es the claim that tense an aspect are not e(presse on the verb& #t $ill be sho$n belo$ that, unli%e 7lac%foot an contrary to #nglis)s claim, Mi)gma! is not a tenseless language& 2itter an ,iltsch%o argue that the lac% of -* ma%es certain pre ictions about a given language& Among them is the temporal ambiguity of unmar%e forms bet$een past an non=past& -he follo$ing subsection e(plores this in more etail&


The lack of tem-oral ambiguity in Mi'gmaq

#nglis :2002, 200A< has ma e the claim that Mi)gma! lac%s a -*& #nstea , $hat have been transcribe as past=tense mar%ers by authors, such as "i elholtB :1@CD<, are evi entials& -his section $ill emonstrate that these morphemes enco e F9pastG& #n section C, $e $ill see that they also enco e evi entiality& #mportantly, it $ill also be sho$n that the lac% these morphemes results in an utterance that is interprete as obligatorily non=past& -ense is the grammaticaliBation of situations relative to time :+omrie 1@D?<& Using the schematic re ra$n from +omrie :1@D?E 2< a continuous line such as the one in :A0<, then the present is a point mar%e on the line then everything to its left represents the past an everything to the right of the point represents the future& Languages $ith tense escribe the time of the verb event relative to the time of the iscourse conte(t& :A0< j k k( k k k k k k k 0 k k k k k k (k k k l past event present future event : iscourse conte(t<

3vi entiality is the grammaticaliBation of source of information an situates those in the iscourse conte(t relative to those involve in the event& Distinguishing tense from evi entiality is ifficult because, as note by many $ho have stu ie evi ential systems :such as Go because usually it is the past events that are mar%e for evi ence source& Ma%ing things more ifficult is the fact that many languages have evi entiality fuse $ith another grammatical category such as tense& -his is $hat # argue is the case for Mi)gma!& 0ther languages, such as ,est Greenlan ic can be clearly emonstrate to have no tense& -his is in icate by the fact that sentences $ith no temporal mar%ing are ambiguous bet$een past an non=past interpretations :a apte from "ortescue 1@DAE 2W2 in 5haer 200>E 1AC<& ar 1@D0[ #nglis 2002, 200A[ Ai%enval 200A to name a fe$<, evi entiality is often associate $ith the past tense& -his is




aggirpu! b& aggir=pu! come=>5G )home isJ$as coming)

ti%ippu! ti%it=pu! have=arrive &=>5G )'e has comeJcame)

#n languages $ith a fuse tenseJevi ential system, li%e $ill be argue for Mi)gma!, unmar%e constructions are unambiguously non=past, $hile the past=tense e!uivalent can only be e(presse using one of the -3 morphemes, as emonstrate in :A2<& :A2< a& ela)l=uln=eg bring=2=*L ),e bring you :sg<) i),e brought you)


pema)l=i=o!=op :"i elholtB 1@CDEC0>< carry=1=2*L=*A5)$e brought you :# sa$ itJe(perience it<

2elate ly, none of the evi entials are use $ith the present tense& As mentione only events in the past are typically atteste to, ma%ing it pragmatically ifficult to test but not impossible -his can ma%e teasing evi entiality an tense apart ifficult& -he first in ication that the evi entials are in complementary istribution $ith non=past interpretations& -3 morphemes never appear in the neutral :present=tense< form of the verb& 3vi ential morphemes that are not fuse $ith tense shoul be able to attach to non=past verbs to mar% source of information& "or e(ample, if there $ere no element of tense involve in the morpheme $e $oul e(pect the spea%er to be able to istinguish bet$een %no$ing that someone is run% through irect %no$le ge : irect evi ential< or because they $ere tol about it from a thir party& :A>< belo$ sho$s that it is not the case that the -3 mar%er can attach to a verb $ith a non=past interpretation& :A>< a& i $ela!api=n)#nten e E 6ou are run% :# see it< b& i $ela!api=n)s #nten e E 6ou are run% :# hear about it<

-his leaves open the possibility that the evi ential en ings are comple( morphemes that e(press both tense an evi entiality& "urthermore, if tense is not fuse $ith evi ential $e $oul e(pect a possible contrast bet$een :AAa< an :A?a< belo$, or at the very least, the ability to optionally use the e(pressions in :AAb=A?b< :AA< +onte(tE 6ou are in a room $ith *eter an Mary& Mary is hitting *eter& -he hitting is ongoing& 6ou sayE a& Mali ta!ama)tl *ielal Mary hits *eter


b& :A?<

mMa)li ta)!ampn *ielal Marie hits *eter :1st han <

conte(tE 6ou are on the phone $ith 7ill $ho is in a room $ith Mary an *eter& 7ill tells you that *eter is hitting Mary& 6ou say a& b& *iel ta!ama)tl Mary *eter hits Mary m*iel ta)!amsn Ma)li=al *ierre hit Marie :2st han <

A final piece of evi ence that evi entiality is fuse $ith tense comes from the inability to use -3 suffi(es $ith e(pressions that enote present or future tense& -his is emonstrate belo$& :AC< a& tapusa8ig ma)8at=i8=ig t$o leave=>=*L )t$o men leave) 8inum=ug man=*L 8inum=ug man=*L


ulagu tapusa8ig ma)8at=-n#i)g yester ay t$o leave&>=*A5- =*L )t$o men left yester ay : # sa$ it<



i5apohnug tomorro$

tapusa8ig t$o

ma)8at=-n#i)g leave&>= *A5- =*L



8inum=ug man=pl

"urthermore, $e see can see in :AW< that utterances that o not have an evi ential can not be use using felicitously $ith a verbs enoting the past tense& :AW< a& iulagu yester ay tapusa8ig t$o ma)8at=i8=ig leave&>=*L 8inum=ug man=*L


The lack of a -artici-ant node in Mi'gmaq

0ne of the aspects of 2;,)s claim about participant=anchore clauses is that person mar%ing represents the substantive content of #1"L& -he authors argue that evi ence comes from the obligatory person prefi(es seen Algon!uian languages& ,e have alrea y mentione in section 2&2 above that the in epen ent or er in Mi)gma! is escen e from the *roto=Algon!uian con8unct or er an ma%es use of person suffi(es rather than prefi(es& 2ecall the structure of the Mi)gma! verb from section :2D<, repeate belo$& :2D< F#nitial :Me ial< "inalG = 07J = :13G< l5U7JJ*L 4erb 5tem 1D

=-3 = *L



2ecall also that Algon!uian languages li%e 08ib$e, $hich ma%e use of the person prefi(es are sub8ect to a range of hierarchy effects an ma%e use of inverse morphology& ,hat crucially istinguishes person prefi(es from agreement is that agreement mar%ers e(press a bun le of features, in the case of 08ib$e person an number& A secon crucial aspect of 2;,)s proposal that person substantiates #1"L in 7lac%foot is that the person prefi( oes not establish a relation $ith a fi(e argument :2;, 200@E 1WA<& ,e have alrea y seen in section 2&2 that this oes not hol for Mi)gma!& +ompare the e(amples belo$ from Mi)gma! an 08ib$e& :AD< a& pema)l=i#n carry=1=2 )you carry me) g#$aabam ,=see b& pema)l=ul carry=2 )# carry you) g#$aabam#in ,=see=#14 :a apte from 4alentine 2001E 2W0<




Mi)gma! uses ifferent morphology for first an secon person ob8ects& 08ib$e uses the same prefi( $ith the a ition of post=verbal inverse morphology& -he important point is that neither person= agreement slots in Mi)gma! can represent the substantiating content of #1"L because e the function of the participant as $ell their involvement person morphology an Jor person or number& Mi)gma! oes not fit 2;,)s mo el of a participant anchore language& -his section compare Mi)gma! to the genetically affiliate participant anchore language, 7lac%foot& #t $as sho$n that, unli%e 7lac%foot, Mi)gma! oes not have a participant no e hea ing the clause& +ontrary to the claim ma e by #nglis :2002, 200A< Mi)gma! oes have a tense system& #t $ill be argue that this system is fuse $ith evi entiality& Although the claim is ma e that tense an evi entiality play a role in Mi)gma!, there is no claim that #1"L is substantiate by multiple features& #nstea , an analysis $ill be presente in the frame$or% of Distribute Morphology :'alle an MarantB 1@@A< $hich calls for the morphological fusion of syntactic no es, this is iscusse in section ?& -he follo$ing section intro uces 5peas)s mo el of evi entiality&

4 ! Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq
Mi)gma! is a language that obligatorily e(presses source of information= $hether an event is %no$n through personal e(perience, the physical senses, inference, or hearsay&




alasutm=a=sn=ig b& pray=>=*A5=*L = )-hey : ual< praye :so # hear<)

#1D#23+101 L0+AL

alasutm=a=pn=ig F*acifi!ue ,1@>@E C?G pray=>=*A5- =*L = )-hey ual praye :# sa$ it<)
D#23+101 L0+AL



gesinug$=ap sic%=:><=*A5)'e $as sic%, # sa$ it)



gesingu$=as sic%=:><= *A5)'e $as sic%, so #)m tol )


F#nglis, 200>E 1@WG

-his section e(amines the literature on evi entiality in or er to offer a efinition of evi entiality an types of evi ential systems& Although the first in= epth stu y of the $orl )s evi ential systems $as probably +hafe an 1ichols :1@DC<, it $as +in!ue $ho first note that evi ential morphemes share common syntactic positioning an argue that crosslinguistically evi ential affi(es, au(iliaries, particles, an a verbs li%ely generate in a semantically correspon ing functional hea :1@@@E DC<& :?2< +in!ue)s functional hea s 3val* 3val) 3val 3vi * 3vi ) 3vi 3pis*

Ai%enval :200A< offers a mo ern perspective on the $orl )s evi ential systems $ith a survey of the types evi ential systems atteste in the $orl )s languages& Defining an 3vi ential system means not only i entifying $hat is an evi ential, but also efining $hat categories of evi ential morphemes e(ist& #n subsection A&1, $e $ill loo% at $hat evi entiality is an $hat it means for a language to have a )rammaticali4ed evi ential system& #n 5ection A&2, $e loo% at possible types of evi ential systems are atteste across languages& 5peas)s mo el of evi entiality is escribe in section A&>&


<hat is evidentiality=

3vi entiality is the grammaticaliBation of information source $hich in icates $hether the spea%er participate in the event, sa$ it, hear about it secon =han , or inferre it in some other $ay :Ai%henval , 200AE 1<& #n languages such as 3nglish concepts li%e time, efiniteness, an number are obligatorily e(presse in any given utterance& Languages $ith grammaticaliBe evi ential systems obligatorily e(press $hether the source of information is erive from personal e(perience, irectly through the senses, in irectly through inference, or hearsay& +ompare the e(amples from 3nglish an 20

,an%a .uechua belo$& :?>< :?A< a& b& a& John $ante to eat the coo%ies John ate the coo%ies, # sa$ it +hay=chruu=mi ach%a $amla=pis $alashr=pis this=L0+=D#2 many girl=too boy too n a alma=%u=l%aa=n L bathe=23"L=#M*&*L=*A5Many girl an boy $ere s$imming :# sa$ them<

:Ai%enval 200AEA><


n u Daan L pa$a=shra=si %a=ya=n=chr=ari fiel finish=part=even be=#M*"=>=3M*' )#ot :the fiel < might be completely estroye ) :# infer< Ancha=p=shi too&much=gen=rep $a)a=chi=n%i $amlaa=ta cry=+AU53=2 girl=A++


-hese concepts can be e(presse in 3nglish using a verbials or parenthetical e(pression such as )# hear that) or )# see that)& -he crucial ifference is that, in 3nglish, these e(pressions are optional $hereas a sentence in a language li%e ,an%a .uechua omission of the evi ential results in an ungrammatical utterance :Ai%enval 200AE WD<& Although evi entials are often glosse into languages li%e 3nglish as mo als such as epistemic must, $hich e(presses the spea%ers commitment that the proposition is true, evi entials are consi ere a istinct grammatical category :see 5peas 200D for iscussion<& Ai%enval argues that confusion bet$een evi entials an epistemic mo als arises from linguists familiar $ith 3uropean languages in an attempt to escribe evi entials using more $ell=%no$n, conventional morphemes :200AE W<& 0ne %ey ifference is that evi entials only mar% source of information an values of a given sentence& o not have an effect on the truth

4 , Ty-es of evidentials
A ifficulty in stu ying evi ential systems is the terminological inconsistencies in escribing types of evi ential systems& "or the purposes of this paper, # $ill use the terminology first escribe by ,illett :1@DD<, e(pan e on by 5peas :200Aa, 200Ab< an intro uce in section 1&1& ,illett :1@DD in 5peas 200DE@A>< may have been the first to note that languages rarely grammaticiBe more than three or four categories of evi ence10, an evi ence type is consistent across
10 Ai%enval :200A< escribes languages that ma%e up to si( istinctions in their evi entiality systems& -hese systems further sub=categoriBe there evi ential categories $ithin the four main evi ential categories personal e(perience, irect, in irect, an hearsay& "or e(ample in outubuan, a *apaun language, :i< $e see that sensory category can be sub ivi e


languages& ,illett)s categories are given in :??< :,illett 1@DDE?W<& :??< 5illett's basic cate)ories of evidentiality *ersonal e(perience ff sensory : irect<ff in irect ff hearsay ,illett argues that these are pragmatic categories an can be arrange into a pragmatic hierarchy& -he pragmatic hierarchy refers to the participants connection to the event& -he more reliable the information source& or the more involve in the event the participant is, the higher the position in the hierarchy& 5peas :200Aa, 200Ab, 200D< notes that the hierarchy oes not pre ict the restriction on evi ential types, $hich she argues is surprising given the $i e=range of notions about %no$le ge source an reliability that can be e(presse using a verbs, mo al au(iliaries an propositional pre icates :5peas 200AbE 2??<& "urthermore, there are many possible pragmatically an culturally salient $ays that a spea%er may %no$ something, yet none of $hich are ever e(presse $ith an evi ential para igm such as ivine inspiration, legal e ict, or parental a vice& -his suggests that evi entiality is a restricte system rather than simply the e(pression of pragmatically salient sources of evi ence :5peas 200AbE 2C0<& +iting +uly :1@@A<, 5peas :200Aa< argues that the same hierarchy in :??< is also seen in logophoric pronouns& Logophoric pronouns are co=referential anaphora that mar% the thir person sub8ect of a epen ent clause i entically to the sub8ect of the main clause& 5ome ,est African languages, such as 3$e, use them to enco e that the sub8ect in reporte speech is the same as the person oing the spea%ing& :?C< belo$ is ambiguous in 3nglish bet$een a e rea an :?C< a& 5he sai that she i it i& Jane sai that Deborah i it ii& Jane sai that Jane i it e icto rea ings&

#n languages that ma%e use of logophoric pronouns, such as 3$e, the pronoun in the embe e clause has a ifferent form epen ing on the inten e meaning& Accor ing to +uly, the pre icates $hich allo$ logophoric pre icates in their complement fall into the follo$ing hierarchy&
into concepts such as XvisualY an Xnon=visualY it& 7ecause Mi)gma! oes not ma%e this istinction the evi ential subtypes $ill not be e(amine here& a& aiya bare $a=boba'ae :Ai%enval 200AE C2< air plane come=4#5 )An airplane is coming) :can see it< b& aiya bare $a=bida'ae air plane come=1014#5 )An airplane is coming) :can hear it<



+uly)s logophoric pre icate 'ierarchy speechffthoughtff%no$le geff irect perception -he hierarchy in icates that all languages that ma%e use of logophoric pronouns allo$ them in

the complement of a speech pre icate& #f a language allo$s for a logophoric pronoun un er a thought pre icate, then it automatically allo$s a logophoric pronoun un er a speech pre icate as $ell& #f a language allo$s the pronouns un er pre icates of %no$le ge, then it also allo$s them un er pre icates of thought an speech& Languages that allo$ them in pre icates of irect perception allo$ them un er all four categories& 5peas :200Aa< e(amines +uly)s hierarchy an points out that the hierarchy seen $ith evi entials an logophoric pronouns correspon to the four highest pro8ections in the structures propose by +in!ue :1@@@<, seen in :?>< above, re ra$n belo$ for convenience& :?>< a& 3val* 3val) 3val 3vi * 3vi ) 3vi 3pis*

5peas :200Aa< proposes that the cross=linguistic inventory of atteste evi entials is limite by the structure in :?>< an that evi ential categories are achieve through hea movement of the evi ential feature from one of the propose functional hea to another& -he table belo$ summariBes $hich hea correspon s to $hich evi ential category& Table 5: 7inque's categories and corres-onding evidentials +in!ue)s *ro8ection 5peech act 3valuative *hrase 3vi ential *hrase 3pistemological *hrase 3vi ential 'ierarchy 'earsay #n irect evi ence Direct evi ential *ersonal 3(perience

5peas :200Ab< ho$ever observes that the postulation of these an only these functional hea s is as much a stipulation as pragmatic accounts of evi entiality& 5econ ly, the overlap bet$een +in!ue)s 2>

categories an evi ential categories is !uestionable& ,e $oul e(pect an evi ential morpheme to hea the evi ential phrase& "urthermore, the correlation bet$een 3pistemological Mo e an personal e(perience is oubtful& -he epistemological mo e is Xthe locus of 3pistemic inference, not personal e(perience :200AbE 2?W<&Y


Evidentiality and -erson features

5peas :200Ab, 200D< argues that the morphological features of the evi ential system are analogous to those in the person system escribe by 'arley an 2itter :2000<& Un er 'arley an 2itter)s assumptions pronouns are not primitive units& -hey are create configurationally using bun les of features such as F9J= spea%erG an F9J= iscourseG& -hese features in icate the role of a pronoun in the iscourse, an serve to istinguish participants in the iscourse, first an secon person, from those outsi e the current eictic sphere, thir person& -he authors propose the feature geometry in :?D@<& :?D< 2eferring 3(pression :p*ronoun< *articipant 5pea%er F9J=G A ressee F9J=G in ivi uation :'arley an 2itter 2002E ?0D<

#n this structure, first an secon person features are ominate by the participant no e, the interpretation of $hich is epen ent on the iscourse& Un er 'arley an 2itter)s system thir person refers to those outsi e the iscourse conte(t& "eatures relating to thir person are non=in e(ical :gen er, number, animacy, etc&< an are ominate by $hat 'arley an 2itter label the in ivi uation no e& -he structures belo$ illustrate the structure of possible pronouns& :?@< *articipant 5pea%er A ressee 2eferring 3(pression #n ivi uation Minimal Augmente Group Animate Masc "em 'arley an 2itter)s :'enceforth ';2< system is esigne to pre ict the inventory of e(isting person para igms& ,ith the feature geometry from :?@< above, ';2 are able to pre ict the restricte inventory of possible pronoun foun crosslinguistically& -he primary structural ivision of the +lass #nanimate


2eferring 3(pression is person an number& ';2 argue that only first an secon person are represente featurally an that >r person has no e(plicit feature& #nstea , thir person in icates the absence of a feature :'arley an 2itter 2001E ?0@<& -he geometry belo$ is for the possible persons foun across the $orl )s languages& :C0< 1stE 23 *articipant 2n E 23 *articipant A 1st e(clE 23 1st incE ressee 23 *articipant 5pea%er A ressee

*articipant 5pea%er

1umber is etermine by the structure of the in ivi uation no e& Accor ing to the authors, singular is enco e by a bare in ivi uation no e, or $ith M#1#MAL in systems $ith ual systems& *lural is in icate $hen the in ivi uation no e ominates G20U*, an ominates both M#1#MAL an

ual is enco e $hen #1D#4#DUA-#01

5peas argues that the same features that apply to the pronominal system apply to the mo al base in evi ential systems& XF-Ghey specify ho$ the mo al base is relate to the spea%er an to the iscourse, an as such are a species of agreement :5peas 200AaE 2?@<Y. Li%e $ith pronouns, the feature geometries of evi entials constrain the possible inventory of evi entials foun in the $orl s languages& -he structure istinguishes %no$le ge available in eictic sphere from %no$le ge ac!uire else$here an further istinguishes evi ence only %no$able to the spea%er from evi ence possibly seen or hear by others. -he general structure is given belo$ in :C1<. -he structure for each evi ential type is given in :C2< :C1< Mo al 7ase *articipant 5pea%er F9J=G A ressee in ivi uation :5peas 200AbE 2CA<



a& Personal (xperience Mo al 7ase eictic sphere 95pea%er c& ndirect (xperience Mo al 7ase Deictic sphere 95pea%er =5pea%er


Direct (xperience Mo al 7ase eictic sphere =5pea%er

:5peas 200AbE 2CA<


Hearsay Mo al 7ase in ivi uate

Li%e $ith 'arley an 2itter)s pronominal feature geometry, the structure propose by 5peas ma%es pre ictions about possible para igms& 7ase on the structure above :C1<, 5peas)s structure ma%es the pre ictions that if a language has a morpheme for personal experience an Jor direct evidence then it $ill have a morpheme for in irect evi ence because the feature FDeictic 5phereG ominates F 9J= 5pea%erG& -his $oul pre ict that the evi ential systems in :C>< are possible evi entials systems $hile the ones beneath it in :CA< are not&11

11 5peas also ac%no$le ges that un er 'arley an 2itter)s account, F95pea%erG is more prominent than F=5pea%erG an , therefore, no language coul have F=5pea%erG $ithout F95pea%erG pre icting the follo$ing evi ential systems impossibleE a& b& c& i irect evi ence, in irect evi ence i irect evi ence, in irect evi ence, hearsay i irect evi ence, hearsay

-his pre iction ho$ever may not be born out as the e(ample from Ai%enval belo$ emonstrates in $hich the Australian language 1giyambaa $hich is claime to have a t$o=$ay evi ential system bet$een sensory evi ence : irect evi ential< an reporte evi ential :hearsay<& :ii< a& b& qin u=gara girambiyi :Ai%enval 200AE >?< ypu=D#2 sic%&*A5)6ou $ere sic% :one coul see this< burary=d*a#lu garyaga chil ='3A25A6=>A75 bring )#t)s sai that she)s going to bring the chil ren

,hether 'arley an 2itter are correct in there claim an languages li%e 1giyambaa can be analyBe in another fashion remains to be seen& -he issue $ill not be a resse further in this paper&



a& b& c& & a& b& c& &

*ersonal e(perience, in irect evi ence *ersonal e(perience, in irect evi ence, hearsay *ersonal e(perience, irect evi ence, in irect evi ence, hearsay #n irect evi ence, hearsay i*ersonal e(perience, hearsay i*ersonal e(perience, irect evi ence iDirect evi ence, hearsay i*ersonal e(perience, irect evi ence, hearsay


-he prece ing section efine evi entiality both terminologically an in terms of feature geometry& -he follo$ing section escribes the evi ential system in Mi)gma! an categoriBes the evi entials base on the mo el propose by 5peas&

5 ! The 1tructure of Mi'gmaq evidentials

,e note in section A&A that istinguishing bet$een tense an evi entiality can be ifficult& +omplicating things further is the fact that many languages have evi entiality fuse $ith tense& -his is precisely the claim that $ill be ma e for Mi)gma!& 7efore $e e(amine the evi ential morphemes in further etail, it is necessary to establish that tense is fuse $ith evi entiality& "ist section ?&1 briefly escribes the morphosyntactic process !usion an emonstrates that Mi)gma! is a language $ith a fuse evi entialityJtense system& #n section ?&2, $e apply 5peas) mo el of evi entiality to Mi)gma!&


The Fusion of Tense and Evidentiality

-he term fusion refers to the morphosyntactic process escribe in the $or% of 'alle an MarantB)s :1@@A<& Un er the Distribute Morphology frame$or% /ocabulary tems :4#s< are bun les of semantic, syntactic, morphological an phonological features rather than iscreet units& 4#s are propose to have a Xsyntactic hierarchical structure all the $ay o$nY an are sub8ect to the same principles an operations of the synta( proper :2W?<& A %ey property of Distribute Morphology is 6ate nsertion, $hich stipulates that the insertion of vocabulary items :phonological features< occurs after the synta(& Morphological operations can occur bet$een the synta( an 4ocabulary #nsertion[ these processes o not affect the semantics of the utterance& "usion is a post=syntactic operation of the *" component in $hich sister no es are collapse into a single no e prior to linearisation :an pronunciation vocabulary insertion< :#bi E 2WW<& -he image belo$ is re ra$n from 'alle an MarantB :1@@AE 2WW<&



5ynta( Morphology :Merger, Fusion, "ission& etc&< 4ocabulary #nsertion *honological 2ules *" L"

"usion accounts for situations $here there are fe$er phonetic realiBations than there are terminal no es in the syntactic representation& -his is $hat is argue for the Mi)gma! evi entialJtense system in $hich both past tense an evi entiality are e(presse $ith a single morpheme& Matushans%y :200CE DW note 2>< escribes fusion as t$o istinct phenomenaE pre=syntactic buil ing an X"usionY& *re=syntactic buil ing is generally thought to involve hea movement that results in the bun ling of t$o :or more< features& -hese features then un ergo "usion $here they are then e(presse by a single e(ponent& -his is schematiBe belo$& :CC< m(m mym / 6 s mBm "usion / m(m mBym 6 s *resyntactic buil ing l m(m mBm / 6 mym s tBf

5 1 , Fusion in Mi'gmaq -he claim that evi entiality is fuse $ith tense iffers from #nglis)s :2001, 2002, 200A< analysis of the Mi)gma! evi ential system& #nglis argues that Mi)gma! only has notions of past tense in Mi)gma!


:#bi E ??<& 'o$ever, it has been sho$n that Mi)gma! is not a tenseless language& 3vi ence for this analysis lies in the follo$ing factsE :1< the lac% of temporal ambiguity in unmar%e forms :2< the complementary istribution of evi entials an present tense interpretationE :>< the incompatibility of evi entials $ith non=past temporal a verbials& #t $ill no$ be sho$n that Mi)gma! -3 morphemes are also use to mar% information source an represent the fusion of grammatical tense an 3vi entiality #n section >, $e sa$ that Mi)gma! is not a tenseless language& 7efore continuing, $e $ill loo% at evi ence that the morphemes are not purely tense& -he -3 morphemes are in complementary istribution& =*'n e(presses personal e(perience an irect evi ence& =5'n represents in irect evi ence an hearsay an can not be use $ith the secon person. -S'p'n is use in place of -s'n $hen a secon person participant is involve & 3vi ence of this comes from istribution of the -3 morphemes& ,e never fin a verb mar%e for a irectJpersonal e(perience embe e by a matri( verb that inherently implies the secon han %no$le ge of the embe e verb an vice versa& :CW< a& nutmaia=nemia=s>n?@-'n hear&1= *A5see&>= *A5J *A5# hear that he sa$ him



teltasia=nemia=->n?@s'n thin%&1= *A5- & see&>f>= *A5# thought that he sa$ him
*325 3/



Mi)gma! appears to have a fusion of both tense an evi entiality base on the absence of temporal ambiguities an the istribution of tense a verbials& -he follo$ing section escribes the Mi)gma! evi entials -sn, -pn an -spn, briefly intro uce in section 2&2 an compares them to 5peas)s mo el of evi entiality escribe in section A&


The distribution and structure of the Mi'gmaq evidentials

-he follo$ing section escribes the istribution of each of the Mi)gma! evi entialJtense mar%ers an ho$ their istribution relates to 5peas)s mo el of evi entiality& 5 , 1 The direct? -ersonal eA-erience evidential -he most common evi ential use in Mi)gma! is the suffi( =p+n,& -his suffi( is use across all person an animacy para igms an is generally foun $or finally& As iscusse section 2, $hen $or final the final JnJ is roppe & :C@< a& me)te)it='struc%&2f1=*A5you:sg< struc% me


me)te)i=struc%&>f1=*A5'e struc% me 2@



me)te)sg)=-n#ig struc%=>f2=*A5- =*L -hey struc% you



#nglis :2002, 200A< argues that evi ence for the morpheme -p'n is an attestive evi ential comes from the fact that it is never use $ith the contracte form of the verb stem12, seen in conte(ts of irrealis such as the future or sub8unctive& 'o$ever, this is inaccurate at least in the Listugu8 ialect, $here the morpheme is seen in constructions such as the one in :W0b<, $hich e(presses the con itional past=tense belo$& :W0< a& elug$ei $or%&1 # $or% b& elug$ei=)p $or%&1=*A5# $or%e





ulagu etug lug$eig=apn yester ay maybe $or%&1=*A5yester ay maybe # $oul have $or%e :i&e if you ha as%e <

#n or er to felicitously use the -3 morpheme, the spea%er must have first=han direct 7no$led)e of the event through some means such as sight or hearing, even if the event in !uestion involves a first person sub8ect& "or e(ample, #nglis :2002E A@< reports that if a verb is acte out $ithout the conscious participation on behalf of the spea%er then the in irect evi ential surfaces& -he spea%er cannot use a irect evi ential to attest to the verb because they $ere unable to $itness the event first han through sight, hearing, soun , smell or touch& -he follo$ing is #nglis)s e(ample :2002E A@<& :W1< +onte(tE 6ou arrive late for class after falling asleep -eacherE -ami e)gs)pZ $here $ere youZ
12 A contracte version of the stem in icates irrealis such as future an the con itional& +ontraction occurs in most stems $hose first vo$el is an JeJ, although this vo$el can be foun in first or secon position& a& b& getapigiet sJhe sings segin you urinate l l )gtapegiete$ sJhe $ill sing egites you $ill urinate

#rrealis is most li%ely being mar%e $ith a phonologically null preverb, rather than through contraction itself& evi ence for this comes from the fact that contraction is also observe in non=irrealis conte(ts $ith preverbs& :ii< a& elug$et 5Jhe $or%s b& natahlug$et 1?he %no$s ho$ to $or%J is a goo $or%er iJohn elug$ate$ sapohnug John $ill $or% tomorro$


John lug$ate$ & John u =lug$=a=te$ John u=$or%=>="ut&nonlocal John $ill $or% tomorro$


Ans$er 1E

nepei=ap sleep&1=*A5# :purposefully< fell asleep


Ans$er 2E

nepei=as sleep&1=*A5# :acci entally< fell asleep


-he suppositive evi ential is use in the secon ans$er because the spea%er must infer that they fell asleep base on the evi ence from the real $orl , they i not hear it, see it, or $itness it through some other physical means an cannot infer it base on internal e(perience alone& -he e(ample belo$ sho$s that =p'n is also li%ely use to e(press personal e(perience, recall from section 1&2 that personal e(perience evi entials iffer from irect evi entials in that the evi ence is accessible only to the spea%er& :W2< teltasiapJ@s thin%&1=*A5# thought



-he semantic omain of this evi ential is irect %no$le ge through first han e(perience an J or )conscious) engagement& -his overlaps $ith 5peas)s efinition of a irect evi ential :200AaE 2C2<& Accor ing to 5peas these evi entials are use $hen the spea%er has first=han %no$le ge of the verb event through some visual, au ible, or physical means an this evi ence is available to anyone $ho $ithin the same eictic sphere as the spea%er& #n a ition, the morpheme in icates that the event in !uestion happene in the past& -herefore, =p'n has the structure in :W>b< $hen use as a irect evi ential an the structure in :22a< $hen use to mar% personal e(perience& 7oth are re ra$n belo$& :W>< a& Personal (xperience Mo al 7ase eictic sphere 95pea%er -he overlap of the personal e(perience an b& Direct (xperience Mo al 7ase eictic sphere =5pea%er irect evi entials is consistent $ith ,illett)s observation :5peas 200AaE 2CA<

that languages that use a single evi ential mar%er for multiple evi ential types can only combine meanings a 8acent on the pragmatic hierarchy given in : in 5peas 200D<


5 , , The indirect evidential #s'n -he in irect evi ential =s'n mar%s statements of secon =han information in $hich the spea%er has been tol about the event in !uestions or if the spea%er has inferre the event& #nglis refers to the morpheme as suppositive although this may be mislea ing& -he morpheme oes not refer to the epistemological state of the spea%er& =S'n mar% only that the spea%er lac%s irect evi ence of the event un er iscussion& -he follo$ing are a fe$ e(amples of the in irect evi ential& :WA< a& nemiah=s'n see&>=*A5he sa$ him :i $as tol about it< he :must have< seen him


teltasiap nemia=->n?@s'n thin%&1=*A5see&>= *A5- Ji*A5# thought that he sa$ him



:WAb< sho$s that =s'n can not be embe e un er =p'n $hen the matri( verb is one in $hich no other participant can can access the eictic sphere of the spea%er, such as the spea%ers o$n thoughts& #n a ition to mar%ing hearsay or lac% of conscious participation, =s)n is also use to mar% !uestions& Accor ing to my language informant this is common usage of the morphemes& -he use of the morpheme in !uestions ma%es sense intuitively given that necessarily there must be some sort of inference ma e by the on the part of the spea%er in or er to have something to !uestion& :W?< a& Go!$ei $en peguatelg)=s $hat $ho buy&>='3A25A6 ),hat i someone buyZ) b& ,en peguatelg=)s go!$ei $ho buy&>= '3A25A6 $hat )Di anyone buy anythingZ)

#n contrast, he e(ample belo$ emonstrates that the irectJpersonal e(perience evi ential cannot surface in !uestions& :WC< a& mi8i=ap eat&1=*A5)# ate) b& mi8iasZ Jimi8iapZ eat&1= '3A25A6Ji*A5)Di # eatZ)




nemi)t)=p see&25G=*A5)6ou sa$ himJherv



nemi)s)pZJ see&2=*A5w'ave you seen himJherZ)


"inally, $e also see the evi ential use in the if=con8unct the e(ample forms from *acifi!ue :1@@0< are


given belo$& :WW< a& $i)gige=s)n b& $rite=*A5if he $roteJhas $ritten


$i)gigeyigu=sn c& $rite=*A5$e :inc< have $ritten


$i)gigeio!=s)p)n $rite=*A5you have $ritten


Given that the if=con8unct escribes an event that the spea%er coul not possibly have $itnesse , it is easy to see $hy a irect :or personal e(perience< evi ential $oul be infelicitous in this environment& -he spea%er must ma%e some internal inference base on %no$n facts about the $orl as to the event an $oul , therefore, use an evi ential $ith the feature F95pea%erG& =S'n is use in t$o main circumstancesE :1< $hen the spea%er must ma%e some internal inferenceE an :2< $hen the spea%er)s evi ence comes from being tol about the event& -his suggests that three may be a homophonous pair of evi entials mar%ing in irect evi ence bearing the feature F9spea%erG, an hearsay Fin ivi uate G& -hese evi entials are fuse $ith a F9pastG tense feature& Li%e $ith the irectJpersonal e(perience morpheme =p'n, the use of -s'n to mar% both in irect an hearsay is consistent $ith ,illett)s observation that evi entials $ith multiple meanings must represent a 8acent categories on the pragmatic hierarchy& :WD< a& ndirect (xperience b& Mo al 7ase Deictic sphere 95pea%er =5pea%er Hearsay Mo al 7ase in ivi uate

3vi ence that the -3 morphemes have the propose structure in :WD< comes from the fact that $e -s'n occurs $ith all persons e(cept secon because of the absence of a F9a reseeG feature :see section ?&2&> for iscussion<& #n these cases a thir -3 mar%er, -S'p'n is use & -he istribution an structure of the eferential evi ential is iscusse in the ne(t section& 5 , 3 The deferential Evidential -s'p'n #nglis :200>, 200A< escribes a thir evi ential in Mi)gma! $hich she refers to as the eferential evi ential& -he eferential evi ential is in complementary istribution $ith =s'n an =p'n an use only $ith secon person sub8ects an ob8ects an $hen the spea%er has no irect %no$le ge of the act& 7elo$ is an e(ample of the eferential use in both a eclarative an an interrogative& :W@< a& nestmu)ti=o!=s)p un erstoo =2*L=*A5you :plural< un erstoo


1emitu=s)=p go!$ei see&2=*A5$hat Di you see anythingZ


:*acifi!ue 1@>@E @?<


Accor ing to #nglis the eferential suffi( is use by the spea%er to signal that she or he is invo%ing the evi ential %no$le ge of the a ressee an is see%ing confirmation of his or her statement& -his ma%es it similar to an interrogative mar%er, creating a construction similar to a tag !uestions but $ithout the change of intonation typical of a !uestion :200>E 1@C<& #nglis argues that the use of the suppositive eferential $ith the secon person is too e(plicit& -he eferential evi ential allo$s the spea%er to mar% that the verb event $as in the eictic sphere of the a ressee& ,e $ill no$ loo% at ho$ this fits into 5peas)s mo el of evi entiality& 2ecall that in her analysis of evi ential systems 5peas :200Aa, 200Ab< ma%es use of the 'arley an 2itters)s person features F9J#spea%erG applying them to the mo al base rather than a nominal argument& 'arley an 2itter :2002< re!uire a secon person feature F9J= A necessary to pre ict the crosslinguistic inventory of pronouns& FA resseeG that $as resseeG is use to account for

secon person pronouns in the nominal omain if applie to the mo al base in a X5peasianY mo el of evi entiality $e are given a meaning $here the source of evi ence lies $ith the a ressee :rather than the spea%er<& -he propose structure of the eferential is given belo$& :D0< Deferential Mo al 7ase eictic sphere 9A ressee

#f F9J=a resseeG is an available feature to the mo al base $ith the same feature geometry as seen $hen applie to the person system, $e $oul e(pect to fin the same logical possibilities of combinations of features& -his $oul mean that $e $oul e(pect to fin a language that e(presses both F9J=a resseeG an F9J=spea%erG in the same $ay that languages :such as Mi)gma!< can e(press the concept of first= person=inclusive& -his appears to be e(actly $hat $e fin in Mamain x, spo%en in 7raBil, :a apte from Ai%enval 200AE ?>=?A< :D1< a& $a%on=tahkaihe B #la ,or%&>sg='3A25A6&1=*32" )'e $or%e :# $as tol < b& $a%on=tate B Atitu=$a ,or%&>5G='3A25A6&12=*32" )'e $or%e :you an # $ere tol <


The fusion of nodes

-he follo$ing is a structure emonstrating the fusion of tense an evi entiality base on the $or% of >A

+in!ue :1@@@<, 5peas :200Ab<, an 5peas an -enny :200>< & :D2< a& 3val* 3val) 3val 3vi * 3vi ) 3vi y1>& F9J=Deictic sphereG F9J= 5pea%erG F9J= A resseeG -* -) 4*


-he -=no e un ergoes hea movement to the 3vi * $here fuses $ith the evi ence no e& *rovi ing the structure in :D>< :D>< 3vi * 3vi ) 3vi 3vi &&&-*

-o sum, this section has iscusse the istribution of three Mi)gma! evi entials, -p'n, -s'n an =s'p'n in or er to emonstrate ho$ they fit into to 5peas mo el of evi entiality& #t $as sho$n that $hat #nglis escribes as an attestive evi ential -p'n, fits the escription of a irect evi ential, the suppositive -s'n, covers the escription of both the in irect an hearsay evi entials, potentially a result of homophony, an the eferential -s'p'n reflects the use of FA of the verb event& -his section analyse the evi entialJtense suffi(es iscusse by #nglis :2002, 200A< in terms of the 5peas)s Mo el of evi entiality& -his is summariBe in the table belo$& resseeG in relation to evi entials an the eictic sphere

1> +*, 3pis*, etc&


Table C: 1ummary of evidentials 5uffi( =p'n =s'n =s'p'n #nglis)s 3vi entials Attestive 5uppositive Deferential 5peas)s 3vi ential *ersonal 3(perience Direct 3vi ential #n irect 3vi ential 'earsay FA resseeG

C ! 7onclusion
#t has been argue that the Mi)gma! morphemes -p'n, -s'n, an the fusion of tense :past< an evi entiality on the groun s thatE 1& -3 mar%ers are obligatory in past tense conte(ts 2& -he lac% of temporal ambiguity $hen -3 mar%ers surface >& -he lac% of temporal ambiguity $hen -3 mar%ers are absent A& -3 mar%ers are infelicitous $ith a verbs e(pressing the present or future ?& -3 mar%ers obligatorily e(presses source of information an are in complementary istribution $ith each other& -his claim irectly contra icts the one ma e by #nglis that Mi)gma! is not a time=aspect base system li%e 3nglish& "urthermore, it $as sho$n that the evi entiality system in Mi)gma! fits 5peas mo el of evi entiality once $e e(pan it to use the secon person feature i entifie by 'arley an 2itter F9J= A resseeG& -s'p'n& are are the e(pression of


Dnresolved issues and areas for future study

C 1 1 The Mi'gmaq future #nglis an Johnson :2001< propose that =s'n an =s'p'n are present in the comple( morphological en ings seen in the Mi)gma! future, such as those seen in :?1< :DA< a& npates # $ill sleep b& npateg)s c& you:sg< sleep npato!s)p you :pl< sleep

Accor ing to #nglis an Johnson the morphology follo$ing the verb in e(pressions involving the future is a comple(, ecompositional set of suffi(es, an e(ample of $hich is emonstrate belo$ :a apte from #nglis an Johnson 2001E 2?0<& >C


2e uce stem 9


=sJ=sp 9 :e(cept ><

personal suffi(es :only $ith 12, 1>, >pl<

-he authors argue that the future en ings are comprise of the contracte version of the verb ete7 )to be), the suppositive or inferential evi ential mar%er, an personal prefi(es $hen the sub8ect is first :inclusive an e(clusive< or thir person plural& #f this $ere the case, then this $oul provi e potential evi ence against the hypothesis that evi entiality an tense is fuse in Mi)gma!& 'o$ever, #nglis an Johnson)s arguments are unconvincing because the istribution simply oes not support their claim[ -s'n an -s'p'n o not appear $here $e $oul e(pect them to appear of they carry the evi ential meaning claime by #nglis :2002, 200A< an in this paper& "or e(ample, in cases of the secon person singular, li%e in :DAb<, $e have the inferential evi ential $here $e e(pect to have the suppositive morpheme& #n the past tense, $e sa$ that secon person occurs e(clusively $ith =s'p'n. 5econ ly, there is no e(planation as to $hy no evi ential is use $ith thir person in the future but the suppositive evi ential is obligatory $ith the thir person in the past& 7ecause -s'n an -s'p'n in the past=tense have a ifferent istribution than $hat #nglis an Johnson claim in the future, the claim that they carry the same semantic meaning remains unconvincing& More $or% on the matter is nee e before any conclusions can be ma e&


Additional Evidentials=

-here is another en ing commonly use in Mi)gma! $ith the thir person that has an epistemicJevi ential meaning, =ta)una& -his suffi(es is in complementary istribution $ith the evi entials use $ith the thir person an appears to e(press something along the lines of XsJhe must have one (Y an is istinct from the in irect evi ential =s'n an appears to carry $ith it a less certainty than the suppositive suffi(& :DC< a& etug8el negm gmutnala=tuguna l he must have ta%en it )Maybe he stole it :animate<) )'e must :epistemic< have stolen it :an # i nht $itness<) telimataguna 5Jhe must have tol him:Z< nemiatuguna )5Jhe must have seen him) :more of an inference< nemiahsn )5Jhe sa$ him, # hear about it) :more certainty< >W

b& c& e&

Although my consultant escribes the suffi( as very commonly use , there has been little or no research one on this suffi(& -he suffi( appears to carry more of an epistemic flavour than the -3 morphemes e(amine in the present stu y& -here is possible evi ence of F9pastG fusing $ith other grammatical categories& More investigation is nee e into its usage an meaning, the results of $hich coul affect the present analysis& ,e have seen that Mi)gma! is a language in $hich utterance time is anchore to event time via tense& Mi)gma! shares many features $ith both participant an tense anchore languages, an an e(amination of these commonalities provi es us further insight in to the role of grammatical categories in the $orl )s languages&


8ibliogra-hy Aissen, J& :1@@W<& 0n the synta( of obviation& 6an)ua)e, W0?=W?0& Ai%enval A&6& :200A<& (videntiality. 0(for University *ressE 1e$ 6or%& 7loomfiel , L& :1@?W<& (astern 3-ib$a8 9rammatical S7etch, Texts and 5ord 6ist& University of Michigan *ress, Ann Arbor& 7rittain& J&:2001<& The #orphosyntax of the Al)on*uian 'on-unct8 a minimalist approach& Garlan *ublishing #nc& 1e$ 6or%& 7rittain& J& :200><& A istribute morphology account of the synta( of the Algon!uian verb& Proceedin)s of the :;;< Annual 'onference of the 'anadian 6in)uistic Association, e & by 5& 5omesfalean an 5& 7urrell, pp& 2C=A1& MontrealE Universitx u .uxbec z Montrxal& 7ruening, 7& :2001<& Syntax at the ed)e8 'ross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passama*uoddy :Doctoral issertation, Massachusetts #nstitute of -echnology< 7ruening, 7& :200?<& -he Algon!uian inverse is syntacticE 7in ing in *assama!uo =niversity of Dela$are& y& #anuscript,

+hafe, ,&, ; 1ichols, J& :1@DC<&(videntiality the lin)uistic encodin) of epistemolo)y, Able( *ublishing corporationE 1or$oo , 1J& +in!ue, G& :1@@@< Adverbs and !unctional Heads8 A cross-lin)uistic perspective. 0(for University *ressE 1e$ 6or%& +omrie, 7&:1@D?< Tense. +ambri ge University *ressE +uly, +& :1@@A< Aspects of logophoric Mar%ing, 6in)uistics >2E 10??=10@A Deblois, A&D& :1@@0< #icmac Texts& +ana ain 3thnology 5ervice, Mercury series paper W& 0tta$aE +ana ian museum of civiliBation "i elholtB, J& L& :1@CD<& #icmac morphophonemics. Doctoral thesis& M#Go ar , #& :1@DD<& *ost=transformational stem erivation in "o(& #n *apers an 5tu ies in +ontrastive Linguistics 22, ?@=W2& *oBnanE A am Mic%ie$icB University an ,ashington D+ +enter for Applie Linguistics& ar , #& :1@@0<& *rimary an secon ary stem erivation in Algon!uian& #nternational Journal of American Linguistics A0E>1W=2D


'alle, M&, ; MarantB, A& :1@@A<& 5ome %ey features of istribute morphology& #n An re$ +arnie, 'ei i 'arley ; -ony 7ures :e s&<, Papers on phonolo)y and morpholo)y, # T 5or7in) Papers in 6in)uistics 21, 2W?k2DD&'ea movement in linguistic theory& 6in)uistic in*uiry >@

'arley, '&, ; 2itter, 3 :2000<& X*erson an number in pronounsE A feature=geometric analysisY, 6an)ua)e WD:><E AD2=?2C 'arley, '&, ; 2itter, 3& :2002<& 5tructuring the bun leE A universal morphosyntactic feature geometry& Pronouns>9rammar and ?epresentation, 2>=>@& 'e$son, J& :1@WA<& *roto=Algon!uian me ials& nternational @ournal of American 6in)uistics, >0D=>1C& 'e$son, J&, ; "rancis, 7& :1@@0<& The #icmac 9rammar of !ather Pacifi*ue:4ol& W<& Algon!uian an #ro!uoian Linguistics& #nglis, 5& :1@DD<& -he Micmac morpheme =e$= & @@=102 #nglis, 5&, ; Johnson, 3& :2002<& -he Mi)%ma! "utureE #t #s 1ot a -ense& Papers of <:nd Al)on*uian 'onference. +hristopher ,olfart :e &<& ,innipegE University of Manitoba& 2A@=2?W& #nglis 5& :2002< Spea7ers (xperience8 A Study of #i'7ma* #odality. *hD thesis& Memorial University of 1e$foun lan & #nglis, 5& :200><& The Deferential (vidential in #i'7ma*, University of Manitoba& Jolley, +& :1@D><& Algon!uian *erson 'ierarchyE morphosyntactic or semantic&Actes du *uator4iAme con)rAs des Al)on*uinistes& Le$is, M& *& :e &<& :200@<& (thnolo)ue8 6an)ua)es of the 5orld, 5i(teenth e ition& Dallas, -e(&E 5#L #nternational& 0nline versionE httpEJJ$$$&ethnologue&comJ& Mathieu, 3& :200D<& -he synta( of abstract an concrete finals in 08ib$e)& #n 3mily 3lfner an ,al%o$ :e s<, %(6S <B8 Proceedin)s of the <Bth annual #eetin) of the %orth (ast 6in)uistic Society& 101=11A& Martin

Mathushans%y, 0& :200C<& 'ea Movement in Linguistic -heory& 6in)uistic n*uiry >W:1<E C@=10@ *acifi!ue, 2&*& :1@>@< Le{ons grammaticales thxori!ue et prati!ues u messager micmacE .uebec& e la 6an)ue #icma*ue, 7ureau

.uinn, +& M& :200C<& ?eferential-access dependency in Penobscot :Doctoral issertation, 'arvar University<& 2itter, 3&, ; ,iltsch%o, M& :200?<& Anchoring events to utterances $ithout tense& #n Proceedin)s of 5''!6 :4ol& 2A, pp& >A>=>?1<& 2itter, 3&, ; ,iltsch%o, M& :200@<& 4arieties of #nflE -ense, location, an person& Alternatives to carto)raphy, 1?>k201& 2ho es, 2& A& :1@@0<& 2elative 2oot +omplements in 08ib$a& *aper presente at the 2@th +A#L= AAA, 1e$ 0rleans, Louisiana& A0

2ho es, 2& A&:1@@D<& +lause 5tructure, +ore Arguments, an the Algon!uian 2elative 2oot +onstruction& -he 7elcourt Lectures, University of Manitoba& 2ogers, J& :1@WD<& Differential "ocusing in 08ib$a +on8unct 4erbsE on circumstances, participants, or events& nternational @ournal of American 6in)uistics AAE1CW=1W@& 5haer, 7& :200><& |-o$ar the tenseless analysis of a tenseless language&| Proceedin)s of S=6A 2E 1>@k 1?C& 5lavin, -& :200W<& #n search of the event argumentE a semantic analysis of the preverb ishi- in +ree& *aper *resente at 5ULA 2, University of Massachusetts& 08i=

5peas, *& :200Aa<& 3vi entiality, Logophoricity an the syntactic 2epresentation of *ragmatic features, 6in)ua :22?:><E 2??=2WC 5peas, *& :200Ab< 3vi ential para igms, $orl variables an person agreement& ?ivista di 6in)uisticam 1C:1<E 2?>=2D0 5peas, *& :200D< 0n the synta( an semantics of evi entials& 6an)ua)e and 6in)uistics 'ompass, ?:2<E @A0=@C?& 4alentine, 2& :2001<& %ishnaabem$in ?eference 9rammar& -orontoE University of -oronto *ress& ,illett, -& :1@DD<& A cross=linguistic survey of the grammaticiBation of evi entiality, 5tudies in 6an)ua)e 12E ?1=@W ,iltsch%o, M& :200><& 0n the interpretability of tense on D an its conse!uences for case theory& Lingua 11>E C?@=C@C& ,olfart :1@WD< 'o$ many pbviativesE sense an reference in a +ree verb para igm& #n +oo%, 3ung=Dp ; Johnathan oaye Fe s&G, 6in)uistic studies of %ative 'anada, 4ancouverE University of 7ritish +olumbia *ress&