Introduction

A number of linguists have used the notion of a ‘hearsay’ particle in analysing particular languages, e.g. Ballard (1974), Barnes (1984), Chafe and Nichols (1986), Derbyshire (1979), Donaldson (1980), Givón (1982), Haviland (1987), Hewitt (1979), Höhlig (1978), Laughren (1981), Levinsohn (1975), Lowe (1972), Palmer (1986), Slobin and Aksu (1982), Thomas (1978), Willet (1988). While the exact uses of ‘hearsay’ devices vary from language to language, it is said that their main function is to mark information which the speaker got from somebody else. The data on hearsay particles have generally been rather fragmentary, and the notion of a hearsay particle is typically left unanalysed. My aims in this chapter are twofold: first, to provide a fuller range of data on one particular hearsay particle – rέ, from Sissala: and second, to use rέ to choose between two competing accounts of the nature and function of hearsay particles in general.

What is the minimal hypothesis one might make about hearsay particles, given only the informal observation, noted above, that hearsay particles are used to mark information that the speaker got from somebody else? The minimal hypothesis would be, I think, that they should be used only for reporting actual speech. Reported thought would be excluded, and the status of paraphrase, or speech that is attributed by inference without actually being heard, would be unclear. Typically, work on hearsay particles reports a number of uses which do not fit the minimal hypothesis. My data provide clear counter-examples to it.

Apart from the minimal hypothesis, I know of two main accounts of the nature and function of hearsay particles.