Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

participants in the discourse might disagree with. 
When deciding between the past and perfect on the basis of confirmativity, 
PERSON
plays 
a major role. In describing past events, a speaker is more likely to employ a confirmative form if 
the speaker was a participant in that event, and less likely to use such a form if the speaker was 
not involved. Even in contexts where the speaker was unaware of an action that he or she 
performed, it is possible to employ a confirmative form, as the speaker was likely aware of the 
effects of that action and accepts it as true after its completion, as shown in (71): 
(71) Dos-tar-ïm boyïnša, kino kör-gen-de, uyïqta-p qal-dï-m. (Kaz) 
Friend-
PL
-1
SG
according.to movie watch-
NMLZR
-
LOC
sleep-
CVB PFCV
-
PST
.1
SG
 
 
‘According to my friends, I fell asleep while watching the movie.’ 
The use of the confirmative is highly marked, however, if we change the subject of example (71) 
to the third person. As the context explicitly states that the speaker was not present, and because 
the event was unintentional and likely left no evidence that the speaker could use to support his 

---

74 
or her statement, the preferred form of the verb is either the perfect, which is unmarked for 
confirmativity, the marked non-confirmative converbial past, or the evidential form with the 
doubled perfect. 
(72) …uyïqta-p #qal-dï / qal-ğan / qal-ïp-tï / qal-ğan eken (Kaz) 
…sleep-
CVB PFV
-
PST
/ 
PFV
-
PRF 
/
PFV
-
CPST
-3
/
PFV
-
PRF EVID
‘…fell asleep.’ 
The competition between the various meanings borne by the past and the perfect means 
that speakers have the option of emphasizing one meaning over another, depending on the form 
used. In Uzbek, for example, distance competes with confirmativity when discussing events that 
were temporally distant, yet occurred within one’s lifetime. In discussing one’s grandparents, for 
example, the use of the past emphasizes that what is being discussed can be confirmed by the 
speaker, while the use of the perfect emphasizes that what is being discussed happened a long 
time ago. 
(73) Oyi-m va bobo-m qo’y go’sht-i ye-yish-ni yaxshi ko’r-di / 
ko’r-gan. (Uz) 
grandmother-1 and grandfather-1 sheep meat-3 eat-
NMLZR
-
ACC
good see-
PST
.3 / 
see-
PRF
‘My grandparents liked to eat lamb.’ 
Situations that the speaker is unwilling to confirm (including gossip, legends, or facts of dubious 
origin), however, never employ the simple past, even if those events were relatively recent. This 
suggests that the prominence of these meanings is ordered: C
ONFIRMATIVITY 
>
T
EMPORAL 
D
ISTANCE
. 
As shown in the examples involving Columbus, definitness outranks distance in Uzbek, 
as historic events described with greater temporal detail are more likely to employ the simple 
past: 

---

75 
(74) Kolumb 1492 12 oktyabr-da kichkina bir orol-ga chiq-ib qol-di. (Uz) 
Columbus 1492 12 October-
LOC
small a island-
DAT
go.out-
CVB PFV
-
PST
‘Columbus landed on a small island on October 12, 1492.’ 
(Raun 1969:50) 
In neither Uzbek nor Kazakh, however, does definitness outrank confirmativity, as events 
that the speaker is unwilling to confirm are never placed in the simple past -di/ -DI. Because 
historic events such as those in the examples involving Columbus are well-known facts, the 
speaker is unlikely to be perceived as immodest or impolite by confirming them. Even if large 
amounts of detail are included, events that the speaker is unwilling to confirm never employ the 
simple past tense and instead require a marked non-confirmative form. 
What is important to keep in mind in considering the competition between confirmativity, 
definitness, and distance is that while the perfect -gan/-GAn is marked as indefinite and distant 
(in Uzbek), it is not marked for confirmativity. This means that the only time positive 
confirmativity can outrank definiteness or distance is when the speaker wishes to emphasize 
confirmativity over all other factors. The presence of the perfect in this competition means that 
while confirmativity outranks definitness and distance, indefinite and distant meanings may still 
surface because they do not compete with confirmativity when the perfect form surfaces. The 
following tables summarize the relationships established so far between confirmativity, 
definiteness, and distance in Uzbek and Kazakh. 
Table 25: Past and Perfect in Uzbek and Kazakh