Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

bo‘lishib olishgan. 
(Uzbek: Joyce 2007, 22) 
They were in a car. 
The same fellow added: 
—A fellow in the higher line told me. 
Fleming asked: 
—But why did they run away, tell us? 
—I know why, Cecil Thunder said. Because 
they had fecked cash out of the rector's 
room. 
—Who fecked it? 
—Kickham's brother, and they all went 
shares on it. 
(Joyce 2006, 50) 
The excerpt in (92) exhibits the three forms that may be employed to indicate non-
confirmativity: ekan (marked for non-firsthand source and non-confirmativity), the converbial 
past -(i)b/-(I)p (marked for non-confirmativitity), and the perfect -gan/-GAn (unmarked for 
confirmativity). By adding these forms to the previously proposed matrix of competing 
meanings (as in Table 25), we find that confirmativity must be the most salient feature, as the 
converbial past -(i)b/-(I)p or the ekan/eken must be present if explicit non-confirmativity is 

---

82 
expressed. Only when this non-confirmativity is brought into the discourse may the perfect 
-gan/-GAn be used; the confirmative past -di/-DI never surfaces in these discourses. 
We may further expand the matrix of meanings proposed to distinguish between the past 
and the perfect by including the non-confirmative converbial past. The three simple markers of 
past tense compete to express meaning, and when non-confirmative meaning is intended, the 
converbial past (or other non-confirmative forms) will always be the first choice to express that 
meaning. 
Table 26: Features of Past Tense Forms in Uzbek and Kazakh 
-di/-DI Past 
-gan/-GAn Perfect 
-(i)b/-(I)p Converb Past 
[+Confirmative] 
[Ø Confirmative] 
[-Confirmative] 
[+Definite] 
[-Definite] 
[Ø Definite] 
[-Distant]
6
[+Distant] 
[Ø Distant]