Aspect and evidentiality in Kazako

  • Giulia Orlando Researcher


The purpose of this paper is to examine evidentiality in reference to Central Asian context, in particular to Kazakh language. The first section proposes a problematic definition of evidentiality, firstly introducing the most common theories, subsequently analysing the peculiarities of Turkic indirectivity, as from a focused classification of evidential languages. The second section studies in depth the distinctive configuration of Kazakh language — the first work in Italian on this subject, as far as I am aware — to proceed with an accurate analysis of its verbal morphology. The third section focuses on prevailing thesis about Kazakh indirectivity, thereafter the author proposes her personal research confuting the above-mentioned theories.


Agrell S. (1908), Aspektänderung und Aktionsartbildung beim Polnischen Zeitworte, Lund, Håkan Ohlssons Buchdruck

Boas, F. (1911), Handbook of American Indian Languages, Washington , United States Government Printing Office

DeLancey S. (ed. Plank) (1997), Mirativity. The grammatical marking of unexpected information, in Linguistic Typology, Berlino, Walter de Gruyter

Erdal M. (2004), A Grammar of Old Turkic, Leiden-Boston, Brill

Friedman V. (1987), Evidentiality in the Balkans and the Caucasus, Ithaca (New York), Cornell University Press

Graffi G. (1991), Concetti 'ingenui' e concetti 'teorici' in sintassi, in “Lingua e stile” XXVI

Greč N. I. (1827) Prostrannaja russkaja grammatika, San Petroburgo, Tip. Imp. Vospitatelńago Doma

Jakobson R. (1990), Lectures on Sound & Meaning in On Language, Cambridge (Massachussets), M.I.T. Press

Johanson L. (ed. Wener Abrham, Leonid Kulikov) (1999) Typological Notes on Aspect and Actionality in Kipčak Turkic in Tense-Aspect Transitivity and Causativity, Amsterdam, John Benjamin, 'Studies in Language Companion Series'

(ed. Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietch) (2001), Aktionsart and Aspectotemporality in non-European Languages, in Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam, John Benjamins

(ed. Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietch) (2007) Text Subdivision Discourse Types and Taxis, in Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam, John Benjamins

Kara D. S. (2002), Kazakh. Languages of the World/Materials 417, Monaco, Lincom Europe

Khoussaïnova C. Dor R. (1997), Manuel du Qazaq. Langue et Civilization,Paris, L'Asiathèque

Krippes K. A. (1996), Kazakh Grammar with Affix List, Hyttasville (Mariland), Dunwoody Press, University of Michigan

Lentovskaja A. (2008), Una nuova possibile classifcazione azionale dei verbi russi, in «Quaderni del laboratorio di linguistica della Scuola Superiore di Pisa» VII

Menges K. H. (1968), The Turkic Languages and People. An Introduction to Turkic Studies, in “Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica”, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz

Palmer F. R. (2001), Mood and Modality, Cambridge (Regno Unito), Cambridge University Press

Poppe N. (1965), Introduction to Altaic Linguistics, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 'Ural-Altaische Bibliothek'

Ramstedt G. J. (1903), Über die Kojugation des Khalkha-Mongolischen, Helsinki, Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura

Rifat K. M. R. B., Dīwānu l-Luġat al-Turk, Istambul, Matbaa-yı Amire (Darüttıbaa)

Schönig C. (1999), The Internal Division of Modern Turkic and its Historical Implication, Budapest, Eötvös Loránd University, “Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hung” 52

Stoll S. E. (1998), The Role of Aktionsart in the Acquisition of Russian Aspect, Berkeley (California), Univeristy of California

Straughn C. (2011), Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh, Chicago (Illinois), Chicago University

Verč I. (2006), Il verbo russo. Il problema dell'aspetto, Trieste, Università di Trieste

How to Cite
Orlando, G. (2015). Aspect and evidentiality in Kazako. RiCOGNIZIONI. Rivista Di Lingue E Letterature Straniere E Culture Moderne, 2(4), 211-234.