Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

 
 
The combination of the perfect -gan/-GAn and ekan/eken often results in the double 
marking of past tense. The combination of these two past tenses results in a temporal reading 
that is similar to that expressed by the combination of the perfect -gan/ -GAn and the copular 
past edi. As outlined in the previous chapter, this double marking of the past results in 
existential or experiential perfect meanings or, occasionally, pluperfect meaning. This 
(plu-)perfect meaning is evident examples (173) and (174) above and in (175) below: 
(175) AQŠ-qa bar-ğan eken (Kaz) 
USA-
DAT
go-
PRF EVID
‘She’s gone to the USA.’ 
 
Even when ekan/eken itself does not contribute past tense meaning, -gan/-GAn still bears 
non-specific or, in the case of Uzbek, distant past meaning, as when referring to a historical 
figure: 
29
2011. Interfaks-Qazaqstan, 13 Jan. Accessed 7 Feb 2011. 
http://www.interfax.kz/?lang=kaz&int_id=quotings_of_the_day&news_id=263 

---

117 
(176) Onore de Balzak ayt-gan ekan… (Uz) 
Honoré de Balzac say-
PRF EVID
‘Honoré de Balzac (apparently) said…’ 
 
The result of the surfacing of either double past meaning or the distant/non-specific past 
meaning contributed by -gan/-GAn is that it is not possible to express simple, recent past 
meaning when ekan/eken is present. This gap in the paradigm is remedied by employing the 
converbial past in -(i)b/-(I)p. 
The converbial past in -(i)b/-(I)p is not incompatible with the expression of non-firsthand 
evidence, as it expresses non-confirmativity. Within the same conversation, it is possible to 
employ both -(i)b/-(I)p and ekan/eken, switching between these forms as necessary to correctly 
indicate temporal reference: 
(177) — Ularni Layens-Xill yaqinida 
ushlab olishibdi. 
— Kim ushlabdi? 
— Mister Glison bilan ruhoniy. Ular 
aravada ketayotgan ekan. 
O‘sha bola tag‘in qo‘shib qo‘ydi: 
— Menga buni yuqori sinfdagi bir 
bola aytdi. 
(Uzbek: Joyce 2007, 22) 
—They were caught near the hill of 
Lyons. 
—Who caught them? 
—Mister Gleeson and the minister. They 
were on a car. 
The same fellow added: 
—A fellow in the higher line told me. 
 
(Joyce 2006, 50) 
 
In (177), the speakers start by employing the converbial past in -(i)b, which bears is able to 
express past tense and non-confirmativity without the distant, non-specific, or perfect meanings 
contributed by -gan. When the progressive form -ayotgan is introduced, that is able to take ekan, 
as it is only ekan in this sentence that contributes past tense. In addition to expressing past tense, 
ekan also indicates a non-firsthand information source; this source is made explicit in the final 
sentence above when the speaker relates that he was told this information by a third party. 
Similar examples are also found in Kazakh: 

---

118 
(178) Öytkeni Qïtay qazaq-tar men-i “üylen-gen eken, pïšaqta-p öltir-ip ket-ip-ti”
dep te ösepte-gen. (Kaz) 
But China Kazakh-
PL
me-
ACC
marry-
PRF EVID
, stab-
CVB
kill-
CVB
PCTV
-
CPST
-3
COMP
too 
gossip-
PRF
‘But they gossiped to me that he had been married and stabbed [her] to death.’ 
30
 
 
In this example, the content of the gossip (which is enclosed in quotations) begins with eken and 
refers to a more distant event of non-specific temporal reference. The more recent, temporally 
specific event employs the converbial past in -(i)p, so as not to force a (plu-)perfect or 
temporally non-specific reading. 
In summary, ekan/eken only sometimes bears past tense reference. However, when that 
past tense reference creates ambiguity due to the combination of the perfect -gan/-GAn and eken, 
the non-confirmative converbial past may be employed in its place. Table 30 summarizes the 
features of the forms discussed up to this point. 
Table 30: Temporal and Confirmative Features of Relevant Forms 
 
P
as
t 
Spe
ci
fi
c 
D
is
tant
* 
Conf
ir
m
at
iv
e 
Non
-F
ir
st
hand
 
R
epor
tat
iv
e 
P
AST
-di/DI 
+ 
+ 
- 
+ 
Ø 
Ø 
P
RF
-gan/GAn 
+ 
- 
+ 
Ø 
Ø 
Ø 
CP
ST
-(i)b/(I)p 
+ 
Ø 
Ø 
- 
Ø 
Ø 
E
VID 
ekan/eken 
+/- 
Ø 
Ø 
- 
+ 
Ø 
R
EPORT
emish/-mis 
† 
Ø 
Ø 
‡ 
+ 
+ 
 
Notes: 
* Does not apply to Kazakh 
† Uzbek emish is sometimes indicates pastness, Kazakh -mIs in unmarked for tense 
30
Šešenqululï, Qažïmurat. 2010. “Iye, me žiyi ğašïq bolamïn.” Ayqïn: Respublikalïq Qağamdïq-
Sayasiy Gazet, 8 Jul. Accessed 9 Feb 2011. 
http://www.aikyn.kz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2907&Itemid=66 

---

119 
‡ Uzbek emish is non-confirmative, Kazakh -mIs appears to be unmarked for confirmativity