Chapter published in:
Evidence for EvidentialityEdited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 145–172
Chapter 6Uralic perspectives on experimental evidence for evidentials
Early interpretation of the Estonian evidential morpheme
Anne Tamm | Károliá Gáspár University
Reili Argus | Tallinn University
Kadri Suurmäe | Tallinn University
The chapter gives an overview on evidentiality in the Uralic languages. It then focuses on a behavioral experiment testing the processing of Estonian evidentials by four- and six-year-old children. The predominantly agglutinative Estonian, a Uralic language spoken in Europe, has an evidential morpheme on verbs (typical of various non-European languages), combining evidentiality and epistemic modality (typical in various European languages). We examine the effect of the Estonian evidential on preschoolers’ exploratory play, contrasting it with the effect of unmarked indicative sentences. Initially, the novel morpheme causes increased play, but the effect disappears as the acquisition of the indirect evidential meaning progresses. Novel grammar raises expectations of communicative intent in young children and makes them try out (or generalize over) statements.
Keywords: acquisition, agglutination, behavioral experiment, epistemic modality
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Evidentiality in Uralic languages
- 2.1Direct and indirect evidentials (Samoyedic languages)
- 2.2Evidential strategies (Permic languages, Ob-Ugric languages)
- 2.3Morphological indirect evidentials (Southern Baltic Finnic)
- 2.4No evidentials but adverbs, verbs, and modal morphemes (Hungarian, Erzya, Finnish, Saamic)
- 3.The evidential ‑vat and other ways of expressing evidentiality in Estonian
- 4.The acquisition of evidentiality
- 5.The acquisition of Estonian evidentials
- 6.Method
- 6.1Procedure
- 6.2Participants
- 6.3Coding
- 7.Results
- 8.Discussion
- 9.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgment -
Abbreviations -
Notes -
Sources -
References
Published online: 19 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.07tam
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.07tam
References
Sources
Aksu-Koç, A.
Aksu-Koç, A., & Slobin, D.
Aksu-Koç, A., Ögel-Balaban, H., & Alp Ercan, I.
Aksu-Koç, A., Cağlar, L. R., Csibra, G. & Tamm, A.
2014 Do Turkish indirect evidential sentences provide information but thwart generalization?. Paper presented at the Workshop Empirical Evidence for Evidentiality, Nijmegen, January 9-10.
Argus, R., Kapanen, A., Kütt, A., Parm, S., Suurmäe, K., & Tamm, A.
2013 Evidentsiaalidel on täiskasvanute ja laste seas erinev funktsioon. Conference paper presented at Teoreetiline Keeleteadus Eestis, Tartu, December 16–17.
Argus, R., Suurmäe, K., Kütt, A., & Tamm, A
2014 Eesti kaudse evidentsiaalsuse morfoloogilise markeri omandamisest: mõistmiskatse tulemused [Acquiring evidentiality in Estonian: the results of a comprehension experiment]. Series of the Institute of the Estonian Language and Culture of the University of Tallinn, 83–102. Tallinn: University of Tallinn.
Butler, L. P., & Markman, E. M.
Burkova, S.
Choi, S.
Clark, E.
Coppen, P. -A., & Foolen, A.
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G.
Culbertson, J., Legendre, G., & Smolensky, P.
Erelt, M.
Erelt, M., Metslang, H., & Pajusalu, K.
Fitneva, S.
Gelman, S. A.
Gopnik, A., & Graf, P.
Gusev, V.
de Haan, F.
2000 Evidentiality in Dutch. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 74–85. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.
House, B. R., Silk, J. B., Henrich, J., Barrett, H. C., Scelza, B. A., Boyette, A. H., Hewlett, B. S., McElreath, R., & Laurence, S.
2013 Ontogeny of prosocial behaviour across diverse societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 10, 14586–14591.
Keevallik, L.
Kehayov, P.
Kehayov, P., Metslang, H., & Pajusalu, K.
Kittilä, S.
2013 Use of evidential markers in declaratives and interrogatives. Paper presented at Association for Linguistic Typology 10th Biennial Conference, Bienne, August 15–18.
Kuznecova, A., Helimskij, E., & Gruškina, E. V.
Kütt, A., Tamm, A., & Argus, R.
Leinonen, M.
Miestamo, M., Tamm, A., & Wagner-Nagy, B.
O’Neill, D., & Gopnik, A.
Öztürk, Ö., & Papafragou, A.
2007 Children’s acquisition of evidentiality. 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Proceedings Supplement, http://papafragou.psych.udel.edu/papers/BU-Ozge.pdf (last accessed: 30/09/2015).
Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y., & Han, C. -H.
Pillow, B. H.
Rett, J., Hyams, N., & Winans, L.
2013 The effects of syntax on the acquisition of evidentiality. In S. Baiz, N. Goldman, & R. Hawkes (Eds.), Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 37 (345–357). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Sepper, M. -M.
Siegl, F.
Sipőcz, K.
Slobin, D., & Aksu, A. A.
Tamm, A.
2009 The Estonian partitive evidential. Some notes on the semantic parallels between the aspect and evidential categories. In L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop, & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality [Linguistics Today 148] (365–401). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Tamm, A., Argus, R., & Suurmäe, K.
Tamm, A., Argus, R., Kapanen, A., Kütt, A., & Suurmäe, K.
Usenkova, E.
de Villiers, J., Garfield, J., Gernet-Girard, H., Roeper, T., & Speas, M.
Wagner-Nagy, B.
Xanthos, A., Laaha, S., Gillis, S., Stephany, U., Aksu-Koç, A., Christofidou, A., Gagarina, N., Hrzica, G., Ketrez, F. N., Kilani-Schoch, M., Korecky-Kröll, K., Kovačević, M., Laalo, K., Palmovic, M., Pfeiler, B., Voeikova, M. D., & Dressler, W. U.