Cover not available

In:Theoretical Issues in the Languages of the Caucasus
Edited by Ümit Atlamaz, Ömer Demirok and Balkız Öztürk
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 294] 2026
► pp. 185–211

Chapter 6
Evidentiality in Karachay-Balkar

Implications for the phrase structure

 | İstanbul Bilgi University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Evidentiality is the grammaticalized expression of the source of information, but epistemic modality and perfective aspect can also convey evidential flavors. This study investigates how evidentiality is encoded in Karachay-Balkar in the syntactic and semantic/pragmatic domains. The data from spontaneous speech and elicited grammaticality judgments indicate four key points: (i) the evidential marker -GAn attaches to verbal predicates only in matrix clauses and does not appear in nominalized clauses, (ii) nominalized embedded clauses are not reduced in size to TP/VP level; instead, they include an impoverished T head to host -GAn as well as a projection to host the epistemic modality marker at the left periphery, (iii) evidentiality is introduced higher than epistemic modality, and (iv) both evidential and epistemic modal values express not-at-issue content, which is not part of the main proposition.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Clausal architecture of Karachay-Balkar
    • 2.1-GAn as a marker of evidentiality
    • 2.2Non-evidential usages of -GAn
  • 3.Embeddability of evidential terms and the phrase structure
    • 3.1Embedded finite clauses: -GAn as an exponent of evidentiality
    • 3.2Embedded nominalized clauses: -GAn as an exponent of an impoverished T head
  • 4.Evidentiality, epistemic modality, and (not-)at-issueness
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • The abbreviations used in this study are
  • References
References (38)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aksu-Koc, Ayhan. & Slobin, Dan I. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), 159–167. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aksu Koç, Ayhan. 2000. Some aspects of the acquisition of evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentials: Turkic, İranian and Neighbouring Languages, Lars Johanson & Utas Bo (eds.), 15–28. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aygen, Gülşat. 2002. Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. PhD dissertation, Cambridge: Harvard.
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace L. Chafe & Nichols Johanna (eds.), 203–213. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 2004. Copulas and functional categories in Turkish. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop of Altaic formal linguistics, Aniko Csirmaz, Youngjoo Lee & Walter Mary Ann (eds.), 208–226. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation Stanford University, CA.
Göksel, Aslı. 1997. Word length. In Proceedings of the 1st Mediterranean conference of morphology, Geert Booij, Angela Ralli & Scalise Sergio (eds.), 190–200. Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. The auxiliary verb at the morphology-syntax interface. In The Verb in Turkish, Eser E. Taylan (ed.), 151–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gürer, Aslı. (2020). Karachay-Balkar relative clauses: Implications for a special type of genitive/nominative alternation. Lingua 243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, Diane & Hirst, Graeme. 1988. Presuppositions as beliefs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 255–260. COLING. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnastopoulou, Elena & Izvorski, Roumyana. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Kenstowicz Michael (ed), 189–238. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of the 7th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, Aaron Lawson (ed.), 222–239. Cornell: CLC Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem. 2007. Copular forms in Turkish, Noghay and Turkmen. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics II, Meltem Kelepir & Öztürk Balkız (eds.), 83–101. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Matters of size and deficient functional categories in three Turkic languages: Turkish, Turkmen, and Noghay. In The Size of Things I: Structure Building, Sabine Laszakovits & Zheng Shen (eds.), 25–44. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koçkar, Tekin. 2017. Karaçay-Malkarlıların somut olmayan kültürel mirasının tespiti. [Identification of the intangible cultural heritage of Karachay-Balkar people] Eskişehir Kuzey Kafkas Karaçay Balkar Kültür ve Yardımlaşma Derneği Yayınları. Eskişehir.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1996. On some copular clitics in Turkish. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics, Artemis Alexiadou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Paul Law & Lohken Sylvia (eds.), 96–114. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information, Uwe Junghanns & Szucsich Luka. (eds.), 129–215. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 305–332. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & Whitman, John. 2011. Afterword: nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121 (7): 1297–1313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Korotkova, Natasha. 2021. The embedding puzzle: Constraints on evidentials in complement clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 52 (1): 210–226: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kural, Murat. 1994. Infl and agreement in Turkish subordinate clauses. In The proceedings of the 12th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Donka Farkas, Erin Duncan & Spaelti Philip (eds.), 339–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Jungmee. 2011. Evidentiality and its Interaction with Tense: Evidence from Korean. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Matthewson, Lisa, Davis, Henry & Rullmann, Hotze. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’a ́t’imcets. The Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 201–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah E. 2010. Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans, 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Macmillan Company; New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli & Schenner, Mathias. 2007. Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Estella Puig-Waldmuller (ed.), 525–539. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David & Roberts, Craige. 2010. What projects and why. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 21, Neil Ashton, Anca Chereches & Lutz David (eds.), 309–327. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sugaunma, Kentaro. 2022. The hearsay expressions in Eskişehir Karaçay. Contribution to the Studies of Eurasian Languages (23).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Şener, Nilüfer. 2011. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Tonhauser, Judith. 2012. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. The Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas (SULA), vol. 6: 239–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. On modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue