Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

4.1.3 Ekan/Eken in Interrogative Contexts 
Morphemes bearing evidential meaning interact with interrogative mood in a number of 
different ways. Faller (2002) outlines five possible readings of the combination of marked 
evidentiality and interrogativity. While these five interpretations are specific to Cuzco Quechua, 
they represent the most likely logical interpretations of utterances of this sort: 
i.) 
The speaker has the best possible grounds for asking (i.e. has evidence that the 
event in question occurred, but was not directly involved in that event) 
ii.) 
The speaker expects the hearer to base his or her answer on the best possible 
grounds (i.e. the speaker expects the hearer to have some knowledge of the event without 
necessarily having been directly involved) 
iii.) 
The speaker is indicating that someone else is asking the question 
iv.) 
The speaker expects the hearer to have non-firsthand evidence for the answer 
v.) 
The speaker does not expect a reply 
These five interpretations listed by Faller are in accord with the interpretations of evidential 
questions proposed by other authors (Aikhenvald 2003; 2004, among others). The interpretation 
of interrogative evidentials varies language to language, and is likely dependent upon the precise 
semantics of the evidential for employed. 
In Uzbek and Kazakh, there are two primary meanings that may be achieved by 
employing ekan/eken in interrogative contexts: expectation that the hearer will base his answer 

---

101 
on the best possible grounds (ii) and expectation that the hearer will have non-firsthand evidence 
for the answer (iv). The combination of ekan/eken may also result in rhetorical questions (which 
would be considered a variety of [v] above), but this interpretation is more closely related to the 
admirative usage of ekan/eken, and will be discussed in full in the next chapter. 
Questions expecting the hearer to base the answer on the best possible grounds can 
usually be translated into English as questions of the sort “Do you know whether…” that is, this 
sort of question is not concerned only with the completion of the propositional content of the 
question, but also with the hearer’s knowledge. Just as it would be odd in English to answer a 
question of this sort with a simple yes-no answer (“Do you know what the time is? -#Yes”) it is 
infelicitous in Uzbek and Kazakh to treat this sort of question as a direct inquiry into the hearer’s 
knowledge. 
Employing eken is, in fact, a common way to inquire about time in Kazakh: 
(137) Sağat neše eken? (Kaz) 
Time how.much 
EVID
‘What time is it?’ 
 
Much like English questions that being “Do you know…”, questions in Uzbek and Kazakh that 
employ ekan/eken are interpreted as more polite, as the question is no longer a direct inquiry into 
facts, but also into the hearer’s knowledge.  
Questions of this sort are often open questions, asking whether anyone knows the answer 
to the questions posed. 
(138) Baqïtžan-dï kör-gen-der bar ma eken? (Kaz) 
Baqïtžan-
ACC
see-
PRF
-
PL
EXIST Q EVID
? 
‘Is there anyone who has seen Baqitžan?’
12
 
 
12
2009. Zamanda, 27 Oct. Accessed 28 Jan 2011. 
http://www.zamana.kz/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1306-baxitjan.html 

---

102 
The question posed in (138) is in regard to a missing child, and the newspaper that this example 
is taken from has posed an open question to the public inquiring whether anyone knows of his 
whereabouts. 
(139) Pivo ich-mas-lik-ning 6 sabab-i nima ekan? Siz bil-a-siz-mi? (Uz) 
Beer drink-
NEG
-
NMLZR
-
GEN
6 reason-3 what 
EVID
you know-
PRES
-2
PL
-
Q
'What are the 6 reasons for not drinking beer? Do you know?' 
13
 
The question in (139) was posed on a message board encouraging people to suggest reasons for 
not drinking beer. The open nature of this question is reinforced by the presence of the question 
“Do you know?” immediately following the main question. 
The other type of question asked when ekan/eken and interrogativity are combined is one 
in which the speaker anticipates that the hearer will respond with non-firsthand information.
Questions of this type are often signaled by the presence of statements marked as non-
confirmative (i.e. employing either ekan/eken or -(I)p/(i)b) in earlier parts of the exchange: 
(140) — Kechasi Saymon Munen bilan 
Tis Boylni hojatxonada ko‘rib 
qolishibdi. 
Bolalar unga hayron bo‘lib 
qarashdi: 
— Ko‘rib qolishibdi? 
— Nima qilayotgan ekan ular? 
Etti aytdi: 
— Yopishishayotgan ekan. 
(Uzbek: Joyce 2007, 24) 
—They were caught with 
Simon Moonan and Tusker 
Boyle in the square one night. 
The fellows looked at him and 
asked: 
—Caught? 
—What doing? 
Athy said: 
—Smugging. 
(Joyce 2006: 53) 
 
In the exchange above, the situation is set up with verbs marked with the non-confirmative past 
-(i)b, and the speaker Athy has indicated that he was neither present for the events in question, 
nor is certain that what he is describing has actually occurred. The other participants in the 
conversation, wishing to know more about what transpired, mark their question with ekan, as 
13
2010. Sherlar.uz, 30 Jun. Accessed 28 Jan 2011. 
http://sherlar.uz/news/pivo_ichmaslikning_6_sababi_nima_ekan_siz_bilasizmi/2010-06-30-6040 

---

103 
they anticipate that Athy will respond with non-firsthand information. This presupposition is 
confirmed when their question is answered with a statment marked by ekan: Yopishayotgan ekan 
‘[They were] smugging.’ 
These questions need not, however, be preceded by non-confirmative statements when 
the speakers already have some idea as to the other’s knowledge. In the Kazakh example (141a-
b), the speaker asks his wife to go and identify a person on the street. The asker is presumably 
aware that his wife will not know the identity of the person in question, so he employs eken, 
expecting that she will answer on the basis of non-firsthand information: 
(141a) Ol äyel-i-ne “Bar-ïp qara-p kel-ši, kim eken?” de-y-di. (Kaz) 
He wife-3-
DAT
go-
CVB
look-
CVB
come-
IMP
who 
EVID
say-
PRES
-3 
 
‘He says his wife, “Go look and come back; who is that.”’ 
 
The asker’s wife does so, and employs eken in her response, as she can only infer the correct 
answer on the basis of other evidence. 
(141b) Äyel-i barïp qara-p kel-ip “Qayïrši eken, tamaq sura-y-dï” de-y-di. (Kaz) 
Wife-3 go-
CVB
look-
CVB
come-
CVB
beggar
EVID
food ask-
PRES
-3 say-
PRES
-3 
‘His wife went and looked and returned and said “He appears to be a beggar, he’s asking 
for food.’
14