Knowledge base · Part XV — Evidentiality and Mirativity · this topic as a network

120. The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema

How does Hokkaido Ainu grammatically express the speaker's information source in sentence-final position?

In terms of evidentiality, the auxiliary verb a indicates direct evidence, whereas aan indicates indirect evidence. (Yoshikawa 2022: 19.5)

The nominalization-plus-copula schema

What construction combines a nominalized clause and a copula to encode evidentiality in Hokkaido Ainu?

In Hokkaido Ainu evidential, modal, and aspectual constructions, the verb appears in its regular finite form directly followed by a nominalizing word without the equative copula ne. (Bugaeva 2016) Evidential constructions in Ainu are formed by nominalizing a verb phrase with an evidential formal noun and following it with the copula ne, functioning as sentence-final expressions in declarative clauses. (Hirosawa 2026) ruwe ne consists structurally of a formal noun plus a copula. (Hirosawa 2026) In Ainu, evidential constructions nominalize verb phrases using the formal nouns ruwe, siri, hawe, and humi, and combine them with a copula. (Hirosawa 2026) Nominalized assertive constructions assert the factualness or truthfulness of the sentence. (Refsing 1986: 237) Modal expressions, mostly evidential, generally take the form of appositively nominalized expressions with a head noun plus the copula ne or an. (Shibatani 1990) In Ainu, evidentiality is expressed by complex predicates composed of combinations of nominalizers and verbs. (Takahashi 2022: 18.2) Syntactically, complex predicates expressing evidentiality are formed of complement clauses. (Takahashi 2022: 18.2) In evidential complex predicates, the complement clause corresponds either to the subject of an existential verb or to the complement of the copula. (Takahashi 2022: 18.2)

The four formal nouns: morphological sources and evidential values

Which four bound nouns mark evidential source in Hokkaido Ainu, and what meanings does each carry?

Evidential markers ruwe, hawe, humi, and siri, despite their transparent nominal origin with possessive suffixes, function primarily as evidential particles. (Bugaeva 2012: 470–471) The light noun ru-w-e expresses inferential evidentiality and is also used as a modality marker of certainty. (Bugaeva 2016) The light noun haw-e expresses reportative evidentiality. (Bugaeva 2016) The light noun sir-i expresses visual evidentiality. (Bugaeva 2016) The light noun hum-i expresses non-visual sensory evidentiality. (Bugaeva 2016) Ainu marks the information source of an utterance using the formal nouns ruwe, hawe, siri, and humi. (Hirosawa 2026) According to Kindaichi (1931), siri ('visual evidential mood') is an expression used to describe an aspect of something seen with one's own eyes. (reported in Hirosawa 2026) According to Kindaichi (1931), hawe ('auditory evidential mood') expresses that something is so based on what was heard. (reported in Hirosawa 2026) According to Kindaichi (1931), humi ('sensory mood') expresses a speaker's subjective, uncertain judgement, conveying meanings such as 'I feel that...' or 'it seems...'. (reported in Hirosawa 2026) According to Kindaichi (1931), ruwe ('factual/certain mood') conveys that something is definitely so and expresses a settled attitude, functioning close to mood rather than aspect or tense. (reported in Hirosawa 2026) Evidential forms in Ainu mainly indicate the information source of the verb phrase. (Hirosawa 2026) The affirmative evidential ending ruwe-ne is used to insist upon or emphasize a fact. (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) The endings humi-ash, humi-an, and humi-ne express sensory evidentiality (impression). (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) The reportative evidentials hawe, hawe-an (plural hawe-okai), and hawe-ta-an (plural hawe-ta-okai) express questions or exclamations about hearsay. (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) The reportative endings hawe-ash and hawe-ne express 'it is said that...'. (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) The visual evidentials shiri, shiri-an (plural shiri-okai), and shiri-ta-an (plural shiri-ta-okai) express questions or surprise based on visual appearance. (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) The visual evidential ending shiri-ne expresses an explanation of an immediate phenomenon or fact. (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) In declarative sentences with formal noun + ne, ruwe ne indicates that the speaker recognizes the proposition as a fact, siri ne indicates visual evidence, hawe ne indicates hearsay/verbal information, and humi ne indicates sensory information other than vision and speech. (Nakagawa 2024: 392) The use of nominalizers in the affiliative form in interrogatives and assertions indicates that the speaker operates under the premise of having already obtained knowledge or experience from the situation or context. (proposed in Satō 2008: 135) The head nouns of modal expressions derive etymologically from nouns associated with types of evidence or channels of information. (Shibatani 1990) Evidential nominalizers such as ruwe, hawe, humi, and siri are etymologically converted from ordinary nouns. (reported in Takahashi 2022: 18.3)

Typological placement: the C1 system

How is the Hokkaido Ainu evidential system typologically classified, and how does its analytic realization differ from affixal systems?

Ainu has a four-term evidential system. (Bugaeva 2022: 1.1) According to Aikhenvald's (2004) typology, Ainu has a C1-type evidentiality system that distinguishes visual, non-visual, inferred, and reported evidential parameters. (Hirosawa 2026) There is a hierarchy in Ainu evidentiality, such that ruwe occupies a different hierarchical rank from other evidential formal nouns. (proposed in Hirosawa 2026) A four-way evidential contrast among visual sensory, non-visual sensory, hearsay, and inferential can be found in many Ainu dialects. (Takahashi 2022: 18.2)

Direct and indirect evidentiality: the eight-form system

What two parameters organize the eight evidential forms, and how do direct and indirect forms differ in their copula choice?

In Ainu, grammatical moods include kakusei-hō (assertive/fact-mood), kensai-hō (visual/evident-mood), bunsai-hō (reportative-mood), kansai-hō (sensory-mood), yoki-hō (expectation-mood), and ishi-hō (volitional-mood), all of which are marked by particles. (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936)

Token frequencies

Which evidential form occurs most often in Hokkaido Ainu texts, and how do token counts compare across all forms?

While hawe tapan and siri tapan are well attested, occurrences of humi tapan are far fewer by comparison. (Nakagawa 2024: 402)

Analytical frameworks

What analytical traditions have described the same clause-final evidential construction, and how do they conflict?

In addition to proper evidential functions, epistemic functions developed in evidential heads, such as an assertive function of ruwe and a probability function of hawe. (Bugaeva 2012: 494–495) Asai (1969), in describing the Ishikari dialect of the Kamikawa region, classifies evidential formal nouns as 'verbal particles' (dōjoshi). (reported in Hirosawa 2026) In Nakagawa (1995), while "hawe (ne)", "humi (ne)", and "siri (ne)" are classified as sentence-final particles, "ruwe" alone is distinguished between a formal noun and a sentence-final particle. (reported in Hirosawa 2026) In Kiritani's (1998) grammar of the Tokachi dialect, evidential forms are classified as "clause-final phrases" that indicate how the speaker perceived the content stated in a clause or sequence of clauses. (reported in Hirosawa 2026)

The shared clause-final frame paradigm

What shared clause-final frame paradigm do the evidential nouns form according to sentence type and following element?

In evidential, modal, and aspectual sentences, light nouns are followed by the equative copula ne in declarative sentences, and by the existential copula an in content questions. (Bugaeva 2016) In evidential, modal, and aspectual sentences without a copula, the final copula is omitted in polar questions and exclamations, so nominalizations are used as non-embedded finite main clauses. (Bugaeva 2016) In Hokkaido Ainu declarative sentences, the equative copula ne is used after the nominalizing word, unlike Sakhalin Ainu which uses the locative copula an. (Bugaeva 2016) In Hokkaido Ainu, the sentence-final copula is omitted in exclamations and polar questions. (Bugaeva 2016) In Hokkaido Ainu, the form (np…) v nmz requires the use of the copula ne sentence-finally only when the nominalizing word functions as a marker of evidentiality, modality, or aspect. (Bugaeva 2016) The affirmative forms ruwe-an (plural ruwe-okai) and ruwe-ta-an (plural ruwe-ta-okai), as well as bare ruwe, express questions or exclamations. (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) A verb phrase followed by a formal noun plus ne type sentence-final phrase (such as ruwe ne or hawe ne) cannot be followed by an adverbial particle. (Nakagawa 2024: 378) A sentence-final phrase of the formal noun plus ne type is almost never followed by auxiliary verbs other than nankor and a. (Nakagawa 2024: 378) A sentence-final phrase (bunmatsuku) consists of either a formal noun optionally followed by a verbal element, a sentence-final particle, or a combination of both. (Nakagawa 2024: 390) The formal nouns ruwe, siri, hawe, and humi combine with verbal elements primarily in four sentence-final phrase patterns: formal noun + ne in declarative sentences, formal noun + an in content questions, formal noun alone in polar questions and exclamations, and formal noun + un in affirmative responses. (Nakagawa 2024: 392) While kusu ne ruwe ne is grammatical, *ruwe ne kusu ne is ungrammatical, demonstrating an ordering restriction on formal noun + ne not found in general verb phrases. (Nakagawa 2024: 394) Forms where tapan occupies the position of ne in sentence-final phrases like ruwe ne are widely used across dialects. (Nakagawa 2024: 401) When sentence-final phrases like ruwe an? or humi! express question or exclamation, they cannot be followed by a noun phrase or a connective phrase. (Nakagawa 2024: 405)

Scope over TAM and the finiteness of the embedded clause

Which TAM and agreement categories can the nominalized clause carry, and over what domain does the evidential form scope?

To negate a declarative sentence ending in a formal noun + ne, the verb phrase preceding the formal noun + ne is put into a negative form. (Nakagawa 2024: 393) Unlike general verb phrases, a verb phrase followed by formal noun + ne cannot modify a common noun (e.g. *pirka ruwe ne kewtum is ungrammatical). (Nakagawa 2024: 394)

Predication type and the Tokachi stage-level constraint

How does the stage-level versus individual-level distinction constrain evidential noun choice in Tokachi Hokkaido Ainu?

In the Tokachi dialect, "hum" (non-visual sensory perception), "haw" (auditory/vocal perception), and "ru" (evidence-based definitive recognition) can be used for both stage-level and individual-level predications. (reported in Hirosawa 2026)

Grammaticalization and the nominalization-to-evidential cline

What diachronic path leads from lexical nouns through complement-embedding nominalizers to evidential sentence-enders?

In Ainu, the nominalized evidential construction originated in a modifying clause whose head nouns (nominalizers) can be traced back to common nouns. (Bugaeva 2012: 494–495) The evidential formal nouns are grammaticalized affiliative forms of common nouns. (Hirosawa 2026)

Dialect microvariation

How does the morphosyntactic realization of the shared evidential system vary across Hokkaido dialects?

In the Tokachi dialect, evidential formal nouns appear in their conceptual (non-affiliative stem) forms. (Hirosawa 2026, Takahashi 2022: 18.3) In Sakhalin Ainu evidential, modal, and aspectual sentences with a nominalizing word, the nominalizing word is preceded by the equative copula nee and followed by the locative copula an (v-poss nee nmz an). (Bugaeva 2016) The concept forms ru, sir, haw, and hum can also be used in sentence-final phrases, a tendency that is especially strong in the Tokachi dialect and relatively common in the Ishikari dialect. (Nakagawa 2024: 391) The pattern formal noun + un used as an affirmative response is probably restricted to dialects around Saru, Chitose, and Horobetsu. (proposed in Nakagawa 2024: 392) In Saru and Chitose Ainu, evidential markers appear in their possessive forms. (Takahashi 2022: 18.3)

Double evidentiality

Can two evidential expressions stack within one clause, and which recurrent patterns occur in Hokkaido Ainu?