evidentialitythe

Evidentialitythe is not a standard or widely recognized term in linguistic literature. There is no established concept by that exact name in major references. In many cases, it is likely a typographical error for evidentiality, or a nonce label used within a specific dataset or study. When encountered, the term should be interpreted in light of its surrounding context and, if possible, clarified with the author or source.

Evidentiality, more generally, refers to the linguistic encoding of the source or reliability of information in a clause. Languages may mark whether information is directly observed, inferred, reported by someone else, or quotative (reported speech). Markers can be affixes, particles, or separate verbs, and they interact with tense, mood, and aspect. Direct evidentials indicate firsthand experience, while indirect or reported evidentials indicate hearsay or inference. Some languages have multiple evidentials that distinguish nuances such as visual vs non-visual evidence, certainty, or source reliability.

Typologically, evidential systems vary widely. In some languages, evidentiality is morphologically mandatory and integrated into verb morphology; in others, it is expressed by separate particles or lexical verbs. The presence or absence of evidential marking can affect discourse structure, stance-taking, and the interpretation of witness testimony or narrative reliability. Researchers study evidentiality to understand how language encodes epistemic stance and how such systems interact with other grammatical categories across languages.

See also: evidentiality; epistemic modality; quotative evidentials; discourse reporting.