Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

CHAPTER 4 
EVIDENTIAL MEANINGS OF EKAN/EKEN 
As established in the previous chapter, the marker that is glossed in this work as 
EVID
, that is, 
evidential, is part of a larger paradigm that denotes not only temporal reference, but expresses 
(non-)confirmativity. These markers are derived from the combination of the copula *er- and 
the perfect *-GAn, and have surfaced, somewhat irregularly, as ekan (Uzbek) or eken (Kazakh). 
A number of features distinguish ekan/eken from other copular forms. The irregular 
phonological alternation *g 
 /k/ is the first of these features, and the rarity of this sort of 
devoicing (that is, devoicing after either *r or intervocalically) has led to some debate over the 
actual origins of ekan/eken (Erdal 1991, 383; 2004, 288, 320). Although their diachronic 
connection is disputable, the perfect (-gan/-GAn) and ekan/eken are linked synchronically both 
by their participation in the confirmativity paradigm and the use of phonologically identical 
forms to nominalize clauses for the purpose of complementation. 
(104) kel-gan-i-ni ko’r-di (Uz) 
kel-gen-i-n kör-di (Kaz) 
come-
NMLZR
-3-
ACC
see-
PST
.3 
‘He saw that he had come.’ 
(105) yaxshi e-kan-i-ni ko’r-di (Uz) 
žaqsï e-ken-i-n kör-di (Kaz) 
good
COP
-
NMLZR
-3-
ACC
see-
PST
.3 
‘She saw that it was good.’ 
A second unusual feature of the evidential is that, unlike other copular forms, the 
meaning expressed by the evidential is not identical to that of the corresponding non-copular 
simplex form; in this case, that moprheme is the perfect. Whereas the perfect expresses a variety 
of past tense meaning (as outlined in the previous chapter) and is unmarked for confirmativity, 

---

90 
the evidential does not consistently express past tense meaning and is marked for non-
confirmativity. 
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the use of the evidential marker ekan/eken in 
Uzbek and Kazakh, as well as the somewhat rarer emish/-mIs. The first section covers the use 
and meaning of these markers in both declarative and interrogative contexts, and provides an 
account their semantic and morphosyntactic properties. The following section examines the 
temporal properties of these morphemes, which are not immediately predictable from the origins 
of this morpheme, and discusses the relationship between the evidential marker and the 
converbial past marker (Uz: -(i)b, Kaz: -(I)p) within the past tense paradigm. In the third 
section, we examine the interaction between the evidential and other verbal categories. The 
well-known interaction between 
MODALITY
/
STATUS
and 
EVIDENTIALITY
is manifested in Uzbek 
and Kazakh via the participation of the evidential in the confirmative paradigm.