Evidential adverbials in Lithuanian : a corpus-based study

The present study examines the functional distribution of the adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiškiai ‘clearly’, ryškiai ‘visibly/clearly’, tariamai ‘allegedly/supposedly’ and aišku ‘clearly/of course’ in Lithuanian fiction and academic discourse. The aim of the study is to identify the evidential and/or pragmatic functions of perception and communication-based adverbials which can be traced synchronically to different syntactic environment (a predication manner adverbial and a CTP clause). The paper examines the frequency of these adverbials, their position, scope, functions, cooccurrence with argumentative markers, word class (adverb or non-agreeing adjective) and the type of discourse they occur in. The research is conducted by applying a corpusbased methodology and the data are obtained from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, namely from the subcorpus of fiction, and the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian. The perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiškiai ‘clearly’, ryškiai ‘clearly/visibly’ and aišku ‘clearly/of course’ denote inferences drawn from perceptual and conceptual evidence and contribute to persuasive authorial argumentation, while the communication-based adverbial tariamai ‘allegedly/supposedly’ functions as a hearsay marker. The latter may also be used as an epistemic marker which refers to unreal or imagined situations. In contexts of common knowledge, the adverbial aišku ‘clearly/of course’ acquires interactional and textual functions and thus reveals traces of pragmaticalisation. In academic discourse, it signals interaction with the addressee and links units of discourse, while in fiction it functions as a speech act modifier in a variety of emotive contexts. The pragmaticalisation of aišku ‘clearly/of course’ is also marked by its high frequency, positional mobility (initial, medial, final) and scopal variability (clausal, phrasal). Alongside its discrete evidential and pragmatic functions, the adverbial aišku ‘clearly/of course’ displays the merger of the two functions. The

The perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'clearly/visibly' and aišku 'clearly/of course' denote inferences drawn from perceptual and conceptual evidence and contribute to persuasive authorial argumentation, while the communication-based adverbial tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' functions as a hearsay marker.The latter may also be used as an epistemic marker which refers to unreal or imagined situations.In contexts of common knowledge, the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' acquires interactional and textual functions and thus reveals traces of pragmaticalisation.In academic discourse, it signals interaction with the addressee and links units of discourse, while in fiction it functions as a speech act modifier in a variety of emotive contexts.The pragmaticalisation of aišku 'clearly/of course' is also marked by its high frequency, positional mobility (initial, medial, final) and scopal variability (clausal, phrasal).Alongside its discrete evidential and pragmatic functions, the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' displays the merger of the two functions.The adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' and tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' do not acquire a pragmatic function, which is indicated by their frequency and position.The results of the present study corroborate the findings of previous studies that common sources of evidential adverbials and pragmatic markers in Lithuanian are verb-based, adjective-based and noun-based CTP clauses.

2
All examples have been translated into English by the author of the article.
The aim of the present study is to identify the evidential and/or pragmatic functions of perception and communication-based adverbials as exemplified in ( 1) and ( 2) in Lithuanian fiction and academic discourse.Since fiction is the closest representative of spoken language, which is spontaneous and direct, and academic discourse represents written language, which is planned and less direct (Chafe 1986, 262;Cornillie 2010, 311), some distributional differences among these adverbials can be expected.The paper will examine the frequency of the adverbials, their position, scope, functions, co-occurrence with argumentative markers and the type of discourse they occur in.As Lampert and Lampert (2010), Wiemer and Kampf (2012), Usonienė (2013) and Fetzer (2014) have all demonstrated, the functional identification of evidential markers in European languages is to a large extent context dependent.

Previous research
A great deal of attention has been devoted in the literature to discussing the notional boundaries of evidential adverbials.In a number of studies in Germanic (Marín-Arrese 2009; Celle 2009), Romance (Squartini 2008) and Slavic languages (Wiemer 2006;Wiemer, Kampf 2012), they are considered to be conceptually different from adverbials of epistemic modality.Evidential adverbials specify the source of information, while epistemic adverbials express the degree of the author's epistemic commitment (Carretero, Zamorano-Mansilla 2013, 320).Although evidential adverbials could be regarded as "epistential" as they contain both the semantic feature of the evaluation of evidence and an assessment of its probability (Simon-Vandenbergen, Aijmer 2007, 38;Carretero, Zamorano-Mansilla 2013, 320), their primary function is undoubtedly evidential.As the analysis of the hearsay particle podobno 'supposedly' in Polish shows (Wiemer 2006, 25), its epistemic meaning components can be suppressed in a number of pragmatic contexts.Similarly, the English adverbials reportedly, allegedly and supposedly do not express the author's epistemic judgment but mark distance from the original sources of information or propositional content (Celle 2009, 289).Evidential adverbials may imply the validity of the propositional content (Marín-Arrese 2009, 245) but validity cannot be identified with epistemic commitment (Cornillie 2009, 59;Boye 2012, 166).
A discourse-functional approach to evidentiality adopted in studies on evidential markers in European languages (Squartini 2007;Diewald, Smirnova 2010a) revealed that evidential adverbials may acquire interactional and textual functions typical of pragmatic markers (Brinton 2008, 17-18) across different types of discourse (e.g.spoken, academic, journalistic).As a result of the process of pragmaticalisation (Aijmer 1997), they cease to mark the author's epistemic justification and extend into discourse management devices.Although the functional extension of evidential and epistemic adverbials may pose a problem in drawing sharp boundaries between their evidential/ modal and discursive use, prototypical meanings can still be distinguished.For example, the English adverbial of course "in some of its uses (...) will have a meaning which is close to its propositional one, in other uses its meaning will be far removed from it, with a grey area in the middle, giving a cline of more lexical to more grammatical meanings, or more propositional to more textual or interpersonal ones" (Wichmann et al. 2010, 123).Similarly, the marker (és) clar 'of course/clearly' in Catalan presents a gradient from modal to discourse marker meaning (Cuenca, Marín 2012, 2221-2222).In order to explore the range of meanings of pragmatic markers, it is important to investigate their position in a clause, scopal properties, collocational profile, type of text, the author's and the addressee's social roles and relationship.According to Aijmer (2013, 18), "pragmatic markers can be looked upon as combinations of formal and functional features and descriptions of the contexts in which they are used".

Data selection and methods
The present study has been carried out by applying corpus based-methodology, which has been an effective tool in describing the use of evidential and epistemic markers in Germanic (Nuyts 2001;Simon-Vandenbergen, Aijmer 2007), Romance (Cornillie 2010), Slavic (Wiemer, Kampf 2012)  Before the qualitative and quantitative analysis proper was carried out, the data retrieved from the corpora had to be selected manually.The study includes the use of akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' and tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' as sentence adverbials and excludes their use as predication adverbials denoting manner.The forms of the adverbs were retrieved automatically, while the distinction between the meanings of manner and evidentiality was done manually.The main distinguishing criterion of sentence and predication adverbials is the semantic type of predicates they collocate with.Manner adverbials collocate with verbs of perception (e.g.matyti 'see'), cognition (e.g.manyti 'think'), communication (e.g.sakyti 'say', rodyti 'show'), the existential and relational verbs atspindėti 'reflect', išryškėti 'become visible', atsiskleisti 'be disclosed' and verbs denoting material processes (e.g.bėgti 'run', statyti 'build', įvykti 'happen') 3 .They define actions, events, and states which refer to objective reality but not the author's subjective reasoning (Traugott 1989, 46), e.g.
Sentence adverbials can be paraphrased by the corresponding adjective in the impersonal construction (Carretero, Zamorano-Mansilla 2013, 345) The semantic classification of verbs is adopted from Downing and Locke (2002).
As the examples above illustrate, the adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently' and aiškiai 'clearly' express the author's evaluation of the source of information rather than describing objective reality.Alongside the semantics of the predicate, there are other cues distinguishing manner and evidential adverbials.Manner adverbials are modified by degree adverbs, as in ( 11) and ( 12), and they can occur in imperative sentences ( 13), e.g.
( 'Avoid being interested so manifestly in the interior, pictures and views through the window, etc.' The criteria for distinguishing manner adverbials from evidential adverbials cannot be taken in isolation but should be combined.There are also a number of cases which display merger between the use of manner and evidential adverbials.Cases of merger are found in contexts where there are evaluative elements and the adverbials collocate with verbs denoting material and verbal processes, e.g.The lack of formal links with the host clause is marked by the omission of the complementiser kad/jog 'that', the copular and the subject (Usonienė 2013, 80).The use of aišku 'clearly, of course' with the zero complementiser in the initial position (17) has been regarded as parenthetical due to functional evidence pointing out its adverbial status (Wierzbicka 2006, 216-217).From a communicative point of view, the exclamatory sentence Jo laukia!'She is waiting for him!' is more prominent than aišku 'clearly, of course'.The former can be addressed by the question Really?(Boye, Harder 2007, 578;Usonienė 2012, 229), while the latter is non-addressable and discourse secondary.Aišku 'clearly/of course' is also considered to be an adverbial when it is used as a structurally independent element (Biber et al. 1999, 551) which occurs as a response to questions, e.g.
(20) -Ir tėtis kartu?-Aišku.(F) '-And is father together?-Of course.' Aišku 'clearly/of course' as a response marker has its crosslinguistic parallels, such as zeker 'certainly in Dutch (Byloo et al. 2006), sure in English (Aijmer 2012), claro 'of courseʼ in Spanish and clar 'of courseʼ in Catalan (Cuenca, Marín 2012), all of which also have an adjectival origin and function as pragmatic markers in presentday language.Byloo et al. (2006, 48) call it "an absolutive use" and argue that it can no longer be regarded as an adjectival or elliptical case of adjectival use.The present study includes only the adverbial use of aišku 'clearly/of course', since other non-agreeing adjectives such as akivaizdu 'evidentʼ and ryšku 'visibleʼ do not show traces of adverbialisation.They are mainly used as CTPs with kad/jog 'thatʼ complementiser or in reduced clauses (Nuyts 2001, 82).The fact that only aišku 'clearly/of course' displays adverbial use confirms Boye and Harder's (2007, 588) claim that not all CTPs tend to express secondary predication and acquire a grammatical status.

Findings and discussion
This section will focus on the frequency of the adverbials under study in fiction and academic discourse, their position in a clause, scopal properties and functions in discourse (inferential, hearsay and pragmatic).

Frequency in the corpora
The distribution of the adverbials in the subcorpus of fiction of the CCLL and the CorALit shows that they are most frequent in fiction.The frequencies are presented in Table 1.In fiction, the most frequent adverbial is aišku 'clearly/of course' which derives from the non-agreeing adjective-based CTP clause.Its relatively high frequency in discourse representing spoken language can be explained by its multifunctionality.As the following subsections illustrate, its functions range from evidential to interactional and textual.The most frequent adverbial in academic discourse is akivaizdžiai 'evidently' which functions as an inferential marker displaying authorial emphasis.In contrast to aiškiai 'clearly' and ryškiai 'visibly/clearly', which function most frequently as manner adverbials in both types of discourse, the evidential use of akivaizdžiai 'evidently' makes up 50% of its overall use.

Adverbials
The least frequent adverbials in both fiction and academic discourse are ryškiai 'visibly/ clearly' and tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly'.As was mentioned earlier, the adverbial ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' is not frequently used evidentially as it mainly functions as a manner or degree adverbial which modifies actions and qualities referring to objective reality.In general, the evidential adverbials expressed by a single adverb, with the exception of the adverbial akivaizdžiai 'evidently' in academic discourse, are less frequent than the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of courseʼ deriving from a CTP clause.This variation in frequency corroborates the findings obtained in previous studies that evidential and other stance adverbials derive from a variety of CTP clauses (adjectival, nominal, verbal) in Lithuanian (Usonienė 2012(Usonienė , 2013(Usonienė , 2015) ) and that adverbs are not productive means in expressing the source of information (Ruskan 2013).

Position and scope
In a similar manner to epistemic adverbials and the comment clauses I think, I believe in English and other languages (Paradis 2003;Kaltenböck 2009;Boye 2012;Kӓrkkӓinen 2012), the adverbials under study may display both clausal and phrasal scope.The scope is determined by the position of the markers (Kaltenböck 2009: 55) and can shed light on their functional variation.The clausal scope of the evidential adverbials has been illustrated in ( 1)-( 2), ( 8)-( 10) and ( 17)-( 19).The phrasal scope is exemplified in ( 21)-( 25).The adverbial can be a modifier within a noun phrase ( 21), ( 22) or a prepositional phrase (23); it can also take scope over an elliptical (24) or incomplete clause (25) (Kaltenböck 2009, 55) The phrasal scope of the adverbials reflects their functional variation.The adverbial aišku 'clearly, of course' in ( 21), ( 24) and ( 25) shows a bleaching of evidential functions and displays features of a pragmatic marker indicating common knowledge and interaction with the addressee.In (21) a promise is made to provide a job and as a natural course of things a promise is also made to provide a salary.In ( 24) and ( 25) the adverbial is used in response to the question in the preceding discourse.The adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently' ( 22) and aiškiai 'clearly' (23) function as emphasisers of the evaluative adjectives kvailas 'silly' and per didele 'too big', although this use is also compatible with their evidential functions, which can be foregrounded or backgrounded depending on the context.In a similar manner to comment clauses in English (Kaltenböck 2009, 61;Kӓrkkӓinen 2012Kӓrkkӓinen , 2197)), the adverbials under study take scope over a clause more frequently than over a phrase.The distribution of clausal and phrasal scope of the adverbials is presented in Table 2.In fiction, phrasal scope is most characteristic of the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course', which occurs in elliptical sentences and interactional contexts, while in academic discourse, the adverbial akivaizdžiai 'evidently' frequently functions as a modifier within a phrase.Other common adverbials with a phrasal scope found in academic discourse are tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' and ryškiai 'visibly/clearly'.

Adverbials
Adverbials with a clausal scope may take the initial, medial and final positions.They occur clause initially if they are used "before the subject or other obligatory elements of the clause" (Biber et al. 1999, 771) as in (26).When the adverbials occur "between obligatory initial and final clausal elements" (Biber et al. 1999, 771), their position is considered as medial.They can be used between the subject and the verb phrase (27) or between the object and the verb phrase (28) or placed after the auxiliary verb (29).The adverbials take clause final position when they occur after all obligatory elements in the clause (Biber et al. 1999, 771) as in (30): The positional distribution of clausal adverbials shows that they occur in the medial position most frequently in both types of discourse.Only aišku 'clearly/of course' in academic discourse and tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' in fiction are more common in the initial position.The data are presented in Table 3.  -Vandenbergen, Aijmer 2002/2003, 23-24).The nonoccurrence of the adverbials aiškiai 'clearly', akivaizdžiai 'evidently', ryškiai 'visibly/ clearly' and tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' in the final position shows their lack of pragmatic functions typically associated with the right periphery of the clause.

Inferential function
In contexts referring to perceptual or conceptual evidence, the adverbials aišku 'clearly/ of course', akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly' and ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' mark inferences.The functional motivation of an inference lies in the assignment of a reason to an observed situation.As Diewald and Smirnova (2010b, 63)  The judgment about the bird of prey ( 31) is based on visual information accessible to the author, namely the map illustrating the birds.Hrasilda's pretending ( 32) is judged from her response O 'Oh', while the fact of heating with birch wood ( 33) is deduced from the smoke from a nearby farm.Conceptual inferences reflect the author's reasoning based on intuition, logic, previous experience or another mental construct (Willett 1988, 96).In this study, conceptual inferences refer to conceptualisations involving the logical relationship between an observed situation and reflected evidence.Conceptual evidence underlying the inference can be expressed by a clause of reason ( 34) and facts available in the adjacent context ( 35), e.g.
( 'The regulation of the law (Article 20, part 2, page 5) on the individual tax free income of 330 litas per month (it used to be 225 litas) for employees of agricultural subjects (firms, farms) is evidently not sufficient.We think that <...>.' The negative polarity of the proposition is marked by the lexical items sutriko 'got confused' (36), ne kokios kasininkės balsas 'not some shop assistant's voice' (37), nelaikė 'did not consider' (38) and nepakankama 'not sufficient' (39).The inferential adverbials co-occur with other argumentative markers, such as the participle būtina 'necessary' (38), the speech act verb pabrėžti 'emphasise' (38), the collocation susidaro įspūdis 'there is an impression' (38) and the intersubjective verb manome 'we think' (39).Their co-occurrence with other argumentative markers explicates the author's debate with other points of view.In ( 38), an unfavourable attitude is expressed towards the catalogue compiled by H. Garlikowska, while in (39) a crititical attitude is expressed towards the law and its makers.The argumentative contexts of use of the inferential adverbials become apparent, especially in academic discourse, when the markers modify propositions that pertain to the results of research or comparison with other studies, e.g.(AD, B) 'The lack of precise criteria for evaluation becomes the major obstacle in preparing long-term strategies for activities of private farms and obstructs the formation of farming traditions.In this respect, the position of a Lithuanian farmer today is clearly not the same if compared to farmers in Western Europe, where the history of farming is one hundred years old.' In (40), the amount of organic soil substance is compared across several variants; in (41) the situation of a farmer in Lithuania and Western European countries is juxtaposed.The comparison is highlighted by the verb atsilieka 'does not keep up' (41), the adjective nelygiavertė 'not the same' (41), and the participial clause lyginant su Vakarų Europos ūkininkais 'compared to farmers in Western Europe' (41).The adverbials aiškiai 'clearly' and ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' highlight the author's conclusion and eliminate any doubt as to the veracity of the claim.Although the lexical evidential markers are not obligatory, their elimination from the contexts above would make the utterances incomplete.In a similar manner to inferential adverbials in English and other languages (Simon-Vandenbergen, Aijmer 2007;Lampert, Lampert 2010;Chojnicka 2012;Wiemer, Kampf 2012), the use of the inferential adverbials above shows that contextual cues play a great role in defining their functions.

Hearsay function
The adverbial tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' most frequently functions as a hearsay marker which indicates that responsibility for the propositional content is attributed to some external source but not to the author.In fiction (42), the original source of information cannot be retrieved from the context as it may be unimportant, unknown or even non-existent.For example, the English adverbial allegedly "does not necessarily imply an assertive source, hearsay serving as a fictitious pretext in a number of cases" (Celle 2009, 285).In academic discourse ( 43)-( 44), the original source may be recovered from the adjacent context because the author explicitly engages into discussion with the source and may question its validity, e.g.
(42) demonstruodamas visam pasauliui, jog dieviškieji žaibai iš dausų jo netrenks, nes jokių dausų apskritai nėra.Kaip ir tų tariamai dieviškų, visuomet teisingų elgesio taisyklių.(F) 'he demonstrated to the whole world that divine lightning from paradise will not strike him because in general there is no paradise.Similarly, there are no allegedly divine, always right, rules of behaviour.'(43) "masių mobilizavimas" reiškia, kad rinkėjų paramos politinis elitas siekia ignoruodamas realią socialinę-ekonominę, tautinę, kultūrinę ir kitokią visuomenės stratifikaciją, visuomenę ar žmones kaip tokius agituodamas kovoti su realiomis ar išgalvotomis politinės sistemos ydomis, žadėdamas tariamai esminę jos transformaciją ir pan.(AD, S) '"mass mobilisation" means that the political elite are trying to gain voters' support by ignoring the real socio-economic, national, cultural or other stratifications of society.They agitate society or people for fighting against real or made up drawbacks of the political system by promising its allegedly crucial transformation and the like.' (44) Regionizmo ideologų įsitikinimas, kad lietuvių savitumas gali išlikti ne priešpriešinant globalizacijai tautos vienybę ir bendrą jos "etninę kultūrą", o iškeliant į pirmą vietą tariamai svarbiausią rezistencinį segmentą -regioninę kultūrą, yra nepagrįstas.Kitų Europos šalių patirtis rodo.(AD, H) 'Regional ideologists' belief that Lithuanian uniqueness can be preserved not by contrasting national identity and its "ethnic culture" with globalisation but by emphasising first of all the allegedly most important resistant segment, i.e. regional culture is not justified.' In ( 43), the author criticises the political elite who promise people the substantial transformation of the political system.The author distrusts politicians' promises because h/she disapproves of their attitude and actions (ignorance of the real socio-economic, national and cultural stratification of society, misleading agitation).Similarly, the regional ideologists' belief in (44) that regional culture is the most important factor contributing to the preservation of Lithuanian uniqueness is questioned.The author's disagreement with the position pursued by the original source is made explicit through the argumentative contextual cues (e.g.įsitikinimas 'conviction', nepagrįstas 'not justified').
The proposition modified by tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' may also turn out to be false, e.g.
( 'Supposedly having cut <…> a sample from the prism of the formed concrete, the base of the prism will be affected by pressure.' In (47), Gailė's pretention of anger is apparent from the way in which she asks the question, i. e. from the direct auditory evidence available to the author.In (48), the adverbial merely refers to the imagined or unreal situation which does not arise either from hearsay or perceptual evidence.The use of tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' in ( 47)-( 48) can be compared to the use of the English adverbial outwardly (Quirk et al. 1985) and the Polish adverbial pozornie 'seemingly/outwardly' (Wiemer 2006).Although Wiemer (2006, 61) claims that negated inferences can be considered as an instantiation of evidential meaning, in this study such cases of use are regarded as epistemic.Their main function lies in expressing "lack of 'reality' in what is said" (Quirk et al. 1985, 621).

Pragmatic functions
In contexts of common knowledge and interaction with the addressee, a variety of pragmatic functions are displayed by the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course'.Its evidential meaning is bleached because the inferential basis cannot be identified.The interactive dimension of the adverbial is apparent in contexts showing a negative attitude towards the addressee, e.g.Resorting to well-known facts and truths, the author activates the addressee's knowledge and encourages him/her to share their opinion (cf.concurrence strategy Martin, White 2005, 122).Appeal to common knowledge is also strengthened by the verbs of deontic necessity turi 'must' and reikėtų 'would need/be necessary'.The range of pragmatic functions in academic discourse is not as wide as in fiction as the latter displays a number of emotive contexts in which the relationship between the author and the addressee is more individual than in the former.However, in all contexts of its use aišku 'clearly/ of course' presupposes common knowledge, which may serve different functions depending on the type of discourse (cf. of course Wichmann et al. 2010, 114-115).In fiction, reference to common knowledge appeals to the addressee's emotions, emphasises the relationship between the author and the addressee (asking for confirmation, showing understanding, expressing irritation), while in academic discourse it appeals to the addressee's knowledge and helps him/her follow the author's argumentation.'He wrote about the hill of Palemonas, and, clearly/of course, he had seen it.' In (59) the inference that the men were in a hurry is drawn from perceptual evidence, and in (60) the deduction about Kosta's coming is based on auditory information.However, common knowledge is also presupposed since the events illustrated happen in accordance with the author's and the addressee's expectations.In (61) the inferential function of the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' overlaps with its textual linking function.The co-occurrence of the adverbial with the conjunction ir 'and' strengthens the linking function and contributes to the connection of authorial arguments in a similar manner to the epistemic verbs I think, I believe, I guess co-occurring with the pragmatic marker and (Fetzer 2014, 80).The use of the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' in (61) can be compared to the use of of course as an evidential/epistemic marker (Wichmann et al. 2010, 124-125) and a conjunct expressing result (Quirk et al. 1985, 638).The merger of evidential and pragmatic functions can be explained by the fact that the lexical meaning of the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' is not totally bleached (Usonienė 2012, 224).

Concluding remarks
The functional distribution of the adverbials under consideration shows that they function as inferential, hearsay and pragmatic markers in Lithuanian fiction and academic discourse.The perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' and aišku 'clearly/of course' denote inferences drawn from perceptual and conceptual evidence and contribute to persuasive authorial argumentation, while the communication-based adverbial tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' functions as a hearsay marker which presupposes the low validity of the propositional content.
Tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' may also be used as an epistemic marker which refers to imagined or unreal situations.The evidential functions of the adverbials have been mainly identified through the retrieval of the source of information in the adjacent context.Although the evidential adverbials are not obligatory elements of a clause, their elimination from the context would result in the pragmatic incompleteness of the utterance.They are brought into discourse because they have a preemptive function (Fetzer 2014, 334), which is especially highlighted in contexts of negative polarity which require evidential justification.
Functional extension into a pragmatic marker, which is signalled by high frequency, syntactic mobility, scopal variation, interactional and intertextual functions, is disclosed by the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course'.Despite the overlap of its evidential and pragmatic functions, it is possible to distinguish prototypical contexts of use of aišku 'clearly/of course' as a pragmatic marker.In fiction, it occurs in emotive contexts in which the relationship between the interlocutors is emphasised, and which is not necessarily agreement seeking and positive politeness oriented as is the case with the Catalan clar 'of course' (Cuenca, Marín 2012, 2214).It may express an ironic and hostile attitude towards the addressee.In first person singular or plural subject contexts, aišku 'clearly/ of course' reveals the author's subjective account of the events and states.Certainly, fiction cannot be regarded as a total equivalent of spoken discourse, and in order to have a full picture of the interactional functions of aišku 'clearly/of course', it is necessary to explore this marker in casual conversation conveying a greater variety of dialogical exchanges.In academic discourse, the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' activates the addressee's common knowledge, prompts the sharing of an expressed opinion and helps him/her follow the authorial line of argumentation.
Pragmaticalisation has not been attested in the use of the adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' and tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly'.With the exception of akivaizdžiai 'evidently' in academic discourse, the adverbials discussed above are not very frequent, especially ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' and tariamai 'allegedly/ supposedly', which is not characteristic of pragmatic markers.Unlike the adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course', the adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly/clearly' and tariamai 'allegedly/supposedly' are not positionally mobile.They are not found in the right periphery of the clause typically associated with intersubjective functions and interactional contexts.Moreover, the conceptual meaning of the source of information is not eroded even in cases where they occur as modifiers within a phrase.These findings support the results obtained from previous studies (Usonienė 2012(Usonienė , 2013(Usonienė , 2015) ) that pragmatic markers in Lithuanian derive from verbal, participial, adjectival and nominal parenthetical CTPs.
The present study also shows that the evidential adverbials in Lithuanian reveal a number of similarities and differences with evidential adverbials in other languages.
The adverbial aišku 'clearly/of course' reveals the merger of evidential and pragmatic functions in a similar manner to its English counterpart of course (Wichmann et al. 2010), Spanish claro 'of course' and Catalan clar 'of course' (Cuenca, Marín 2012).However, the adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently' and aiškiai 'clearly', unlike their English equivalents obviously and clearly (Simon-Vandenbergen, Aijmer 2007, Aijmer 2008) do not reveal traces of pragmaticalisation.

Table 2 .
Distribution of clausal and phrasal scope of the adverbials (normalised frequency per 10,000) put it, "<…> inferential evidentials primarily denote the speaker's reflection of some evidence, i.e. they indicate the relation between the described situation and some other situation, which is treated by the speaker as evidence for the former".In fiction and academic discourse, perceptual inferences expressed by the adverbials under study may refer to visual, auditory or other sensory data as in the examples below: (31) 1570 m. žemėlapyje <...> pavaizduoti keturi paukščiai, centre -aiškiai plėšrus, panašiausias į pelėdą.(AD,H) 'The map of 1570 <...> illustrates four birds, in the centre there is clearly a bird of prey, it strongly resembles an owl.' (32) o štai sėdi ir laukia Hrasildos, tyli, čiaupo lūpas.-O! -mandagiai nustebo Hrasilda; apsimetė, aišku.(F)'he is sitting and waiting for Hrasilda, he remains silent and presses his lips together.-Oh! -Hrasilda said in utter suprise; she pretended, clearly/of course.(33) Iš netolimos sodybos pakvimpa dūmelis, -ten aiškiai kūrenama beržinėm malkom <...>.(F) 'From a nearby farm there is a smell of smoke, -they are clearly heating the place with birch-wood <…>.' 34) Susilpnėjus ES Tarybos ir Komisijos vaidmeniui, visas teisės aktų leidybos galias suteikus Europos Parlamentui, ES ryškiai žengtų federacijos linkme, kadangi sprendimai būtų priimami ne valstybių bendradarbiavimo pagrindu, o Sąjungos piliečių valia per tiesiogiai išrinktus atstovus.(AD,S) 'After the role of the EU Council and the Committee diminishes and the European Parliament takes on all the responsibilities of issuing legal acts, the EU would clearly move in the direction of a federation because all decisions would be taken not in cooperation with member states but by representatives directly and willingly chosen by the citizens of the Union.' (35) Jis džiugiai gali tęsti, plačiau nušviesti kai kuriuos lietuvių literatūros istorijos, rašytojų gyvenimo, kūrybos puslapius.Mokiniams, aišku, įdomu... (F) 'He can enthusiastically continue and enlighten on the history of Lithuanian literature, writers' life and works.The students were, clearly/of course, interested...'In both fiction and academic discourse, the inferential adverbials tend to modify propositions of negative polarity as in comparison with positive polarity, the former is marked and requires evidential justification.In fiction, they occur in contexts illustrating the characters' negative psychological states or qualities; in academic discourse, they ground negative evaluation of facts and opinions, e.g.