en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality
2 corrections found
A quotative indicates the information is accurate and not open to interpretation, i.e., is a direct quotation.
This overstates what quotatives mean. In linguistic descriptions, quotatives mark reported information with an explicit quoted source; they do not inherently guarantee that the content is accurate or that the current speaker endorses it as true.
Full reasoning
Authoritative typological work defines a quotative as reported information with an overt reference to the quoted source, not as a marker of factual accuracy. Alexandra Aikhenvald summarizes the core distinction this way: reported evidentials are used for reported information with no reference to who reported it, while quotative evidentials are used for reported information with an overt reference to the quoted source.
That matters because quotatives can still carry doubt, disbelief, or non-commitment. Stef Spronck’s typological chapter on quotatives explicitly states that quotative constructions may express “(dis)agreement with or doubt in the truth of the message conveyed” and describes quotatives as specialized for conveying information the current speaker “is not quite certain about” or “might not believe at all.” So the article’s claim that a quotative indicates information is “accurate and not open to interpretation” is too strong and is contradicted by linguistic literature.
A more accurate formulation would be that a quotative marks that the information is being presented as a quotation or as coming from an explicitly identified source.
2 sources
- Information source and evidentiality: what can we conclude?
Aikhenvald defines “Reported” as reported information with no reference to who it was reported by, and “Quotative” as reported information with an overt reference to the quoted source.
- Minds divided: Speaker attitudes in quotatives
The abstract says quotative constructions may express “(dis)agreement with or doubt in the truth of the message conveyed,” and the introduction says quotatives are specialized in conveying information the speaker “is not quite certain about” or “might not believe at all.”
No language has been reported to have special forms for smell, taste or feeling although these may be covered by non-visual evidentials.
This blanket statement is too broad. Aikhenvald later notes that while no spoken language is known to have such a special evidential, Catalan Sign Language has been reported to have a special evidential marking smell.
Full reasoning
The sentence is incorrect as written because later typological work by Alexandra Aikhenvald explicitly narrows the claim to spoken languages, not all languages.
In a later overview, Aikhenvald writes: “No spoken language has a special evidential to cover smell, taste, or feeling” and immediately adds an exception for signed languages: “Catalan sign language is reported to have a special evidential marking smell.”
A study of Catalan Sign Language (LSC) supports this exception. Jarque and Pascual list sensory-domain evidential markers in LSC and include OLORAR ‘to smell’ with evidential meaning: inferential and cognitive subdomain: smell. So the article’s absolute claim about “no language” is overbroad. The defensible version is that no spoken language has been reported to have such a special evidential, with a reported exception in Catalan Sign Language.
2 sources
- Information source and evidentiality: what can we conclude?
Aikhenvald writes: “No spoken language has a special evidential to cover smell, taste, or feeling (not so in sign languages: Catalan sign language is reported to have a special evidential marking smell: Sherman Wilcox, p.c.).”
- Direct discourse expressing evidential values in Catalan Sign Language
Table 1 lists LSC sensory-domain evidential markers, including “OLORAR ‘to smell’ … evidential meaning: inferential … cognitive subdomain: smell.”