Aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity

•Mirativity is reinterpreted as 'sudden realisation' (Mexas, 2016).•Relations between aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity represent sets of stages.•These stages can be interpreted as event stages or information stages.•Indirect evidentiality corresponds to Accomplishments, and mirativity to Achievements.

In many languages, including Turkish, Bulgarian or Norwegian, present perfect morphology is ambiguous between an aspectual interpretation and the expression of indirect evidentiality, more in particular inference or hearsay (Izvorski, 1997). In languages such as Washo (Hokan) or Hare (Athapaskan), morphemes that express indirect evidentiality can also be used to express mirativity (DeLancey, 2001; Aikhenvald, 2004, 2012). In Turkish, the present perfect can express all three semantic interpretations: present perfect (PPA), indirect evidentiality (IE), and mirativity (MIR). The question therefore arises what common element links these three interpretations and the particular pairings observed (PPA-IE, IE-MIR, PPA-IE-MIR). Previous accounts such as Bybee and Dahl (1989) and Izvorski (1997) only account for a single link in the triad: PPA-IE. We propose that a proper account of the relations between PPA, IE, and MIR requires that mirativity be redefined in terms of 'sudden discovery or realisation' (Adelaar, 1977, 2013; Mexas, 2016). This redefinition allows us to explain the link between PPA, IE, and MIR in terms of the temporal nature of the traditional aspectual classes: states, processes, accomplishments, and achievements (Vendler, 1967; Mourelatos, 1981). Indirect evidentiality can then be viewed as the evidential counterpart of an accomplishment in the aspectual sense, while the category of mirativity should be viewed as the mirror image of achievements. We will propose a formal semantic analysis that can capture this insight and account for the specific pairings observed.