Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2022) ► pp.67–120

Evidentiality in Finnish

On the communicative functions of the reportative evidential kuulemma and the dubitative marker muka

| University of Southern California , USA
Evidentiality conveys information about the nature – and reliability – of the information source. This paper investigates the Finnish reportative evidential (hearsay particle) kuulemma and the dubitative particle muka (‘supposedly, allegedly, as if’). I propose a unifying analysis of two seemingly divergent uses of muka, and show how they contrast with kuulemma. My analysis builds on and extends recent work on reportatives regarding the distinction between the Animator (the speaker who utters the sentence) and the Principal (the person whose commitments are being expressed). Furthermore, I suggest that the dubitative muka may point to the existence of non-assertive discourse moves and has implications for our understanding of the discourse role of ‘Principal.’ This work also informs typological work on evidentials and related expressions by providing a systematic investigation of reportative and dubitative markers in a non-Indo-European language.
Keywords: Finnish, evidentiality, dubitative, doubt, reportative evidential, hearsay, Principal, Animator, muka , kuulemma
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Initial theoretical background: Discourse updates
    • 1.2On the discourse contribution of reportative evidentials
    • 1.3Prior discourse-update based analyses of the discourse contribution of reportative evidentials
      • 1.3.1Animator and principal
      • 1.3.2 Faller (2019): Reportative evidentials as functions on speech act operators
      • 1.3.3 Pancheva & Rudin (2019): Reportative evidentials as presuppositions
  • 2.Features of the reportative kuulemma
    • 2.1Absence of commitment to the reported proposition
    • 2.2Existence of prior linguistic communicative event
    • 2.3The reported proposition is at-issue
    • 2.4The reported proposition can be added to the common ground
    • 2.5The Finnish reportative kuulemma in light of current analyses
  • 3.Features of the dubitative particle muka
    • 3.1Use 1: Doubting the proposition
      • 3.1.1Doubt: Existence of prior linguistic communicative event is possible but not required
      • 3.1.2Doubt: Proposition being doubted is at-issue but cannot be added to Common Ground
    • 3.2Use 2: Pretending the proposition is true
      • 3.2.1Pretense: Existence of prior linguistic communicative event is possible but not required
      • 3.2.2Pretense: Proposition is at-issue but does not get added to the Common Ground
    • 3.3Summary of muka: Doubt and pretense
  • 4.Discussion and proposal
    • 4.1The basic proposal for dubitative muka
    • 4.2Broadening our view of ‘Principal’
    • 4.3Dealing with make-believe contexts
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
    • 5.1Bringing together the reportative evidential kuulemma and the dubitative muka
    • 5.2Theoretical ramifications
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 13 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00004.kai
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Yurievna. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Almazán, Jennifer. 2019. Evidentiality in Tagalog. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
AnderBois, Scott. 2014. On the exceptional status of reportative evidentials. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 241, 234–254. Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea. 2016. Bridging the gap: Intensifiers between semantic and social meaning. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago.
Blain, Eleanor M. & Rose-Marie Déchaine. 2007. Evidential types: evidence from Cree dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 731. 257–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2017. The Expression of modality in Tlingit: A paucity of grammatical devices. International Journal of American Linguistics 831. 619–678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caudal, Patrick, John Henderson & Martina Faller. 2011. On the Arrernte ‘quotative’ akwele. Talk presented at the 42nd Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society (ALS), Australian National University, Canberra.
Celle, Agnes. 2009. Hearsay adverbs and modality. In Raphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil & Johan van der Auwera (eds.). Modality in English: Theory and description, 269–293. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve. 2020. Perspective-taking and pretend-play: Precursors to figurative language use in young children. Journal of Pragmatics 1561. 100–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2009. Nonfactual at t’: A neglected modal concept. In Raphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil & Johan van der Auwera (eds.). Modality in English: Theory and description, 31–54. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Kjell Johan Sæbø. 2004. In a meditative mood: The semantics of the German reportative subjunctive. Natural Language Semantics 121. 213–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
. 2014. Reportativity, (not-)at-issueness, and assertion. In H. Leung, Z. O’Hagan, S. Bakst, A. Lutzross, J. Manker, N. Rolle & K. Sardinha (eds.). Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley: BLS. 62–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The discourse commitments of illocutionary reportatives. Semantics and Pragmatics 12(8). 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & Kim B. Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 271. 81–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & Floris Roelofsen. 2017. Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. Journal of Semantics 341. 237–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fintel, Kai von. 2004. Would you believe it? The King of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.). Descriptions and Beyond, 315–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 251. 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2001. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., M. Vilkuna, R. Korhonen, V. Koivisto, T. R. Heinonen & I. Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [The large grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kangasniemi, Heikki. 1992. Modal expressions in Finnish. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Erika Sandman. 2013. The particles näköjään (‘I see/seemingly’) and kuulemma (‘hearsay’) of Finnish as evidential markers. Talk presented at the 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC), June 2013, University of Alberta, Canada.
Kittilä, Seppo, Lotta Jalava & Erika Sandman. 2018. What can different types of linguistic data teach us on evidentiality? In Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.). Evidence for evidentiality, 281–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korotkova, Natasha. 2020. Evidential meaning and (not-)at-issueness. Semantics and Pragmatics 131, article 4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Kuiri, Kaija. 1984. Referointi kainuun ja pohjois-karjalan murteissa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Leslie, Alan. 1987. Pretense and representation: The origins of ‘Theory of Mind.’ Psychological Review 941. 412–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
. 2014. Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics 71. 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlund, Taru, & Heli Pekkarinen. 2014. Grammaticalisation of the Finnish stance adverbial muka ‘as if, supposedly, allegedly’. In I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker & J. Tuominen (eds.). Diachronic corpus pragmatics (Pragmatics & Beyond, new series, 243), 53–75. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana & Deniz Rudin. 2019. Speaker discourse roles and the discourse profile of reportative evidentials. In J. Schloeder, D. McHugh & F. Roelofsen (eds.). Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, 327–336.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 1161. 1688–1702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2010. A modification of the “Hey, wait a minute” test. Snippets 221. 7–8.Google Scholar
Potts, Chris. 2005. The logic of conversational implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rozumko, Agata. 2019. Between acknowledgement and countering: Interpersonal functions of English reportative adverbs. Journal of Pragmatics 1401. 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadeniemi, Matti & Jouko Vesikansa. 1988–1989. Nykysuomen Sanakirja [Dictionary of Contemporary Finnish]. Porvoo: WSOY.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli & Matthias Schenner. 2007. Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11 1, 525–539. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 1997. Suomen perfektin merkityksestä keskusteluaineiston valossa [The meaning of the perfect tense in Finnish in the light of conversational data]. Virittäjä 1011. 2–26.Google Scholar
Shanon, Benny. 1976. On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language 141. 247–249.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts. 2010. What projects and why. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 201, 309–327. Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snider, Todd. 2017. Anaphoric reference to propositions. PhD dissertation. Cornell University.
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 315–332. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taniguchi, Ai. 2017. The formal pragmatics of non-at-issue intensification in English and Japanese. PhD dissertation, Michigan State University.
Tonhauser, Judith. 2012. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. In Proceedings of Semantics of Under-represented Languages 61, 239–254. Amherst: GLSAGoogle Scholar
Walker, Marilyn A. 1996. Inferring acceptance and rejection in dialogue by default rules of inference. Language and Speech 391. 265–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Anna Socka. 2017a. How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? Part 1. Studies in Polish Linguistics 121. 21–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? Part 2. Studies in Polish Linguistics 121. 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 121. 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kaiser, Elsi
2024. Evidentials and dubitatives in Finnish: perspective shift in questions and embedded contexts. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.