International Journal Of Literature And Languages
141
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
141-145
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue06-40
Evidentiality And Temporal Distance in Uzbek And
English: A Comparative Analysis
Marimbaeva Surayyo Umarbek kizi
Urgench state university, PhD researcher, Uzbekistan
Received:
30 April 2025;
Accepted:
28 May 2025;
Published:
30 June 2025
Abstract:
This study examines how evidentiality and temporal distance work together in Uzbek and English. It
looks at how witnessed and non-witnessed events change the way time is expressed in two very different types
of languages. This comparison study shows that there are consistent patterns in evidential-temporal encoding by
looking at corpus data from Straughn's (2011) in-depth study of Uzbek evidential markers (-mish, ekan) and new
research on English evidential strategies (Riddle, 2024). Uzbek shows grammaticalized evidential-temporal
integration through morphological markers that naturally encode temporal-epistemic relationships. English, on
the other hand, uses compositional lexical and syntactic strategies. The results support theoretical frameworks
that say evidentiality is more than just marking the source of information; it's also a complex system that includes
epistemic stance, temporal distance, and discourse organisation (Koev, 2017; Plungian, 2010). These results help
us understand universal rules for how evidence and time interact, while also showing how different types of
languages use them.
Keywords:
Evidentiality, temporal distance, Uzbek, English, comparative linguistics, grammaticalization.
Introduction:
The relationship between evidentiality,
which is the grammatical marking of where information
comes from, and temporal reference is one of the most
significant areas of study in modern linguistics. Recent
studies have completely changed the way we think
about evidentiality, which was once thought to be only
about the type of evidence. Instead, they show that
there are complex interactions with temporal systems
that are different in each language (Aikhenvald, 2018;
Koev, 2017; Pancheva & Zubizarreta, 2023).
This study compares how Uzbek, a Turkic language with
grammaticalized evidentiality, and English, a language
that mostly uses lexical evidential strategies, show the
difference between events that were witnessed and
those that weren't in their temporal systems. The study
looks at three research questions:
How do Uzbek evidential markers (-mish, ekan) work
with time references compared to English evidential
strategies?
What are the systematic differences in how witnessed
and non-witnessed events are encoded in these
languages, which are all different types?
What do these patterns tell us about general rules for
how evidence and time interact?
Theoretical Background
There has been a lot of progress in evidentiality
research, from simple typological classifications
(Aikhenvald, 2004; Willett, 1988) to more complex
studies of how evidential and temporal factors work
together. This study is based on three different
theoretical frameworks:
Aikhenvald's Typology of Evidentiality. Aikhenvald
(2004, 2018) made evidentiality its own grammatical
category with five semantic groups: visual, non-visual
sensory, inferential, assumptive, and reportative. Her
framework makes an important point about how
evidential grammaticalization depends on time, since
many languages develop evidential meanings through
changes in time and aspect.
The Mirativity Theory by DeLancey. DeLancey (1997,
2001) made a difference between marking the source
of information and the mental state of the speaker
when they get unexpected information. His research
shows that mirative-evidential interactions often have
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
142
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
temporal elements, where time distance changes
"unprepared mind" states.
The Theory of Temporal Distance. Koev's (2017)
groundbreaking work on Bulgarian shows that
evidential markers show how learning events and topic
time are related in time. Plungian's (2010) idea of
"secondary tense" adds to this framework by putting
some evidentials in the position of encoding when
speakers learnt propositions in relation to the events
they described.
Language Background
Uzbek, a Southeastern Turkic language spoken by
approximately 35 million people, exhibits a complex
evidential system integrated with its three-way past
tense distinction (Straughn, 2011). The language shows
significant Persian influence affecting its phonology
and syntax while maintaining core Turkic evidential
morphology.
English, while lacking grammaticalized evidentiality,
employs systematic lexical and syntactic strategies for
encoding evidential meanings (Chafe, 1986; Riddle,
2024). Recent research reveals more grammaticalized
patterns than previously recognized, including tense
choice
and
determiner
selection
functioning
evidentially.
METHODS
Data Sources
This comparative analysis draws on multiple data
sources:
For Uzbek:
•
Straughn's
(2011)
dissertation
corpus
containing literary texts, native speaker interviews, and
internet data
•
The Uzbek National Corpus (uzbekcorpus.uz)
comprising 50 million words of contemporary Uzbek
•
Native speaker consultations (n=12) from
Tashkent and Khorezm regions
For English:
•
The Corpus of Contemporary American English
(COCA) for evidential strategy frequency analysis
•
British National Corpus (BNC) for cross-
dialectal comparison
•
Academic writing subcorpora for formal
register evidential patterns
Analytical Framework
The analysis employs a mixed-methods approach
combining:
1.
Distributional Analysis: Frequency counts of
evidential markers in different temporal contexts
2.
Semantic Analysis: Classification of evidential-
temporal combinations using Koev's (2017) temporal
distance framework
3.
Comparative Analysis: Systematic comparison
of form-meaning mappings across languages
Coding Procedures
Evidential expressions were coded for:
•
Evidence type (direct visual, direct non-visual,
inference, assumption, reportative)
•
Temporal reference (past, present, future)
•
Temporal distance (proximate <24 hours,
medial 1-30 days, distal >30 days)
•
Epistemic
stance
(confirmative,
non-
confirmative, neutral)
Inter-rater reliability was established through
independent coding of 10% of the data (κ = 0.87)
.
RESULTS
Uzbek Evidential-Temporal Patterns
The Uzbek evidential system demonstrates systematic
temporal-evidential integration through morphological
markers with distinct temporal profiles:
The -mish marker functions as a non-confirmative past
tense rather than pure evidential, encoding temporal
pastness with epistemic non-commitment. Analysis of
2,847 tokens reveals:
•
89% occur with distal temporal reference (>30
days)
•
76% encode reportative or inferential evidence
•
Incompatible with present temporal reference
(*hozir kelgan-mish "now come-EVID")
The ekan marker shows temporal flexibility as a copular
evidential. Analysis of 3,156 tokens shows:
•
43% present states based on past evidence
•
38% past events with present relevance
•
19% purely past reference
•
Compatible with all temporal distances
Table 1 summarizes the temporal distribution of Uzbek evidential markers:
Marker
Proximate
Medial
Distal
Present-Relevance
-mish
4%
7%
89%
0%
ekan
31%
26%
24%
19%
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
143
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
Marker
Proximate
Medial
Distal
Present-Relevance
-di (witnessed)
67%
28%
5%
0%
English Evidential-Temporal Strategies
English evidential strategies show compositional
interaction
between
evidential
and
temporal
meanings:
Modal verbs
(4,892 tokens analyzed):
•
"Must have" + past participle: 92% inference
about past events
•
"May/might have" + past participle: 87%
uncertainty about past events
•
Present modals + stative verbs: 76% current
inference
Evidential adverbs
(3,421 tokens):
•
"Reportedly/allegedly": 94% co-occur with past
tense
•
"Apparently/seemingly": 61% present, 39%
past
•
"Evidently/clearly": 78% present states
Perception verb constructions
(2,156 tokens):
•
"Seems/appears" + infinitive: flexible temporal
reference
•
"Seemed/appeared" + infinitive: past evidence
only
Comparative Patterns
The comparison reveals systematic differences in
evidential-temporal encoding:
1.
Morphological vs. Compositional Integration
o
Uzbek: Evidential morphemes inherently
encode temporal relations
o
English: Separate encoding allows flexible
combination
2.
Obligatoriness in Past Contexts
o
Uzbek: Past events require choice between
confirmative (-di) and non-confirmative (-mish/ekan)
o
English: Evidential marking remains optional
3.
Temporal Distance Effects
o
Uzbek: Morphological choice correlates with
temporal distance
o
English: Lexical modification encodes distance
("apparently just arrived" vs. "reportedly arrived last
year")
DISCUSSION
Theoretical Implications
The findings support and extend current theoretical
frameworks in several ways:
Support for Temporal Distance Theory
. The Uzbek data
strongly supports Koev's (2017) proposal that
evidentials encode temporal relations between
learning and topic time. The distribution of -mish with
distal events and ekan's present-relevance readings
demonstrate
systematic
temporal-evidential
integration at the morphological level.
Grammaticalization Pathways
. The development of
Uzbek evidentials from temporal-aspectual sources
(Straughn, 2011) and English perception verbs into
evidential constructions (Mélac, 2022) supports
Aikhenvald's (2018) observations about common
grammaticalization
paths
involving
temporal
morphology.
Typological Implications
. The contrast between
Uzbek's morphological integration and English's
compositional strategies reflects broader typological
patterns. Languages with grammaticalized evidentiality
tend toward paradigmatic organization with temporal
implications, while languages with lexical strategies
maintain compositional flexibility (Diewald & Smirnova,
2010).
Cross-Linguistic Patterns
The analysis reveals both universal tendencies and
language-specific realizations:
1.
Temporal distance correlates with evidential
certainty across both languages
2.
Witnessed events favor proximate temporal
marking
3.
Reportative evidence associates with distal
temporal reference
Language-Specific Patterns:
1.
Uzbek
grammaticalizes
the
evidential-
temporal relationship through morphology
2.
English maintains flexibility through syntactic
composition
3.
Uzbek shows obligatory evidential distinctions
in past contexts; English maintains optionality
Implications for Linguistic Theory
These findings contribute to several theoretical
debates:
Evidentiality as a Category. The tight integration of
evidential and temporal meanings in Uzbek supports
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
144
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
views of evidentiality as intertwined with tense-aspect
systems rather than an independent category (de
Haan, 1999; Matthewson & Hirayama, 2019).
Grammaticalization Theory. The parallel development
of evidential meanings from temporal sources across
unrelated languages suggests universal cognitive
motivations linking time and evidence (Boye, 2024;
Mélac, 2024).
Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. The compositional
nature of English evidential strategies versus Uzbek's
grammaticalized system illustrates how similar
semantic distinctions receive different structural
realizations based on typological constraints (Murray,
2021).
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations should be noted:
1.
The corpus data may underrepresent informal
registers where evidential usage differs
2.
Regional variation in both languages requires
further investigation
3.
The analysis focuses on declarative contexts,
excluding interrogatives and other moods
Future research should:
1.
Examine evidential-temporal interactions in
interrogative and conditional contexts
2.
Investigate acquisition patterns to understand
cognitive development of these systems
3.
Expand comparison to include languages with
intermediate grammaticalization levels
CONCLUSION
This
comparative
analysis
demonstrates
that
evidentiality and temporal distance represent
fundamentally
integrated
phenomena
across
typologically
distinct
languages.
While
Uzbek
grammaticalizes
this
relationship
through
morphological paradigms and English employs
compositional strategies, both languages show
systematic patterns linking evidence type, temporal
distance, and epistemic stance.
The
findings
support
theoretical
frameworks
emphasizing temporal dimensions of evidentiality
(Koev, 2017; Plungian, 2010) while revealing diverse
structural realizations. These results contribute to
understanding universal cognitive pressures toward
evidential-temporal integration and the typological
space of possible grammatical solutions.
As languages continue to evolve, monitoring changes in
evidential-temporal systems will provide crucial
insights into grammaticalization processes and the
cognitive foundations of linguistic categories. The
systematic patterns revealed here suggest that the
integration of knowledge source and temporal
reference reflects fundamental aspects of human
cognition and communication.
REFERENCES
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford
University Press.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of
evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
Abidova, R. K. (2023). A cross-cultural study of the
speech act of gratitude in english and uzbek. In
Актуальные вопросы современной науки и
образования (pp. 122
-124).
Boye, K. (2024). Evidentiality, discourse prominence
and grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 48(3),
575-607.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23001.boy
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation
and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.),
Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp.
261-272). Ablex.
de Haan, F. (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic
modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of
Linguistics, 18(1), 83-101.
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical
marking of unexpected information. Linguistic
Typology,
1(1),
33-52.
https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality.
Journal
of
Pragmatics,
33(3),
369-382.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (2010). Evidentiality in
German: Linguistic realization and regularities in
grammaticalization.
De
Gruyter
Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037
Koev, T. (2017). Evidentiality, learning events and
spatiotemporal distance: The view from Bulgarian.
Journal
of
Semantics,
34(1),
1-41.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv014
Matthewson, L., & Hirayama, Y. (2019). Evidentials
cannot be reduced to temporal information. Linguistics
and Philosophy, 42(3), 287-323.
Mélac, E. (2022). The grammaticalization of
evidentiality in English. English Language & Linguistics,
26(2),
331-359.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674322000089
Mélac, E. (2024). The links between evidentiality,
modality, and grammaticalization. Studies in Language,
48(3), 513-542.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24011.mel
Murray, S. E. (2021). Evidentiality, modality, and speech
acts. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, 213-233.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
145
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-
012634
Pancheva, R., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2023). No tense:
Temporality in the grammar of Paraguayan Guarani.
Linguistics and Philosophy, 46(6), 1329-1391.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-023-09387-0
Plungian, V. A. (2010). Types of verbal evidentiality
marking: An overview. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova
(Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European
languages (pp. 15-58). De Gruyter Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972.15
Riddle, E. M. (2024). Evidential strategies in English: not
just lexical. Folia Linguistica, 58(s45-s1), 99-128.
https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2023-2054
Straughn, C. A. (2011). Evidentiality in Uzbek and
Kazakh [Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago].
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the
grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in
Language,
12(1),
51-97.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
