Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

participated in. 
Although I have chosen to employ the notion of 
DEFINITENESS
here, I do not wish confuse 
what is described here with the sort of definitness that is often proposed in reference to other 
Turkic languages. The frequent use of terms like definite and indefinite past tense to characterize 
the distinction between the past -DI and perfect -mIş in Turkish (e.g. Kornfilt 1997) assumes a 

---

71 
very broad meaning of the term definite, encompassing not only definite time reference, but also 
confirmativity. What is meant here is closer to the treatment of tense by Song (2005). Under 
this analysis, tense is variable as to its reference. An utterance like (69), for example, is definite 
in its past tense reference, while (70) is not; it merely states that an event occurred sometime 
before the present, but does not specify any details as to the exact time that this event occurred: 
(69) Mary bought apples yesterday. 
DEFINITE
(70) James Dewar invented the Twinkie. 
INDEFINITE
In English, perfects are almost invariably indefinite, in that they specify only that an event 
occurred in the past, but do not specify when exactly that event occurred (Lyons 1999, 45-6), and 
are, in fact, incompatible with specific time reference. As previously noted, what is referred to 
here as the ‘perfect’ is quite different from the English perfect (in as much as it is compatible 
with definite time reference). However, when the Uzbek or Kazakh perfect co-occurs with time 
reference, that time reference may be interpreted as vague, as in (61), where keše ‘yesterday’ is 
interpreted as meaning ‘sometime yesterday’. Moreover, indefiniteness is not the only meaning 
borne by the perfect; in Uzbek, distance is a component of this morpheme’s meaning, and in both 
Uzbek and Kazakh, non-markedness for confirmativity is secondary only to this morpheme’s 
expression of tense. When the perfect is employed to refer to either distant events or events 
which the speaker wishes to neither confirm nor disconfirm, specific time reference need not be 
interpreted as vague. 
Confirmativity is the final and most important factor that distinguishes the past and 
perfect in Uzbek and Kazakh. While there is variation within the evidentiality belt as to the 
precise meanings of the past and the perfect, 
CONFIRMATIVITY
appears to be a consistent 
component of the 
PAST
/
PERFECT
distinction in many of these languages. What is perhaps most 

---

72 
important to understand about confirmativity in these languages is that the past is marked as 
confirmative while the perfect is unmarked for confirmativity (as opposed to being marked as 
non-confirmative). This distinction between being unmarked for confirmativity and being 
marked as non-confirmative is important to make, as in Uzbek and Kazakh, as well as in the 
languages discussed by Friedman (1978; 1980), the use of the perfect (or indefinite past) does 
not necessarily bear the meanings of doubt or reportativity associated with marked non-
confirmativity. In Uzbek, for example, referring to Columbus’ 1492 discovery of America with 
the perfect (as in 57) does not indicate that the speaker has any reason to doubt that statement.
Rather, by choosing to employ the perfect in this context, the speaker is indicating temporal 
distance. 
The three factors that distinguish the past and the perfect - temporal 
DISTANCE
, 
DEFINITENESS
, and 
CONFIRMATIVITY
- are clearly related. A speaker is more likely bear a non-
confirmative attitude toward events that are temporally distant or with indefinite time reference, 
as the speaker is less likely to have directly participated in events that occurred in the distant past 
or in events for which the speaker can provide little information. Although speakers may opt not 
to employ a confirmative form in order to convey a sense of neutrality or modesty, the fact that 
well-known historical facts are expressed in the perfect indicates that it is necessary to 
distinguish distance from confirmativity. Likewise, it is necessary to distinguish definiteness 
from confirmativity in order account for the choices speakers make between the past and the 
perfect when providing specific details relating to past temporal reference, as in (65-68). 
As differentiated from distance and definiteness, confirmativity is a subtype of the 
category 
MODALITY
or 
STATUS
, which relates to the speaker’s attitude regarding the truth-
propositional content of the utterance. If the speaker wishes to vouch for, or confirm the truth of 

---

73 
an utterance, then the confirmative is used. If a speaker wishes not to make any claim as to the 
truth or non-truth of an utterance, then an unmarked form is used, and if an expression of doubt 
or reportativity is desired, then a marked non-confirmative form will be employed.
A consequence of the confirmative meaning of the past tense is that speakers employ the 
perfect, the unmarked option, in order to avoid making strong claims about any event. Speakers 
of both Uzbek and Kazakh report that the use of perfect sounds more polite or demure, while the 
use of the past sounds authoritative or encyclopedic, or even bombastic. In Kazakh, where 
distance is not a factor, speakers tend to prefer the simple past to refer to historic events because 
the speaker takes few risks in confirming the veracity of these events, especially when the truth 
of these events is well known. Other events, however, can be subjectively judged, and by 
choosing a marked confirmative form, the speaker may be committing to a statement that other