The grammatical category of evidentiality is traditionally conceived as marking the “information source” for the claim described by the sentence (see e.g. Anderson 1986; Willett 1988; Aikhenvald 2004). This paper defends the view that evidentiality need not be a semantic primitive but can rather be pragmatically derived from the spatiotemporal distance between the event described by the sentence and the “learning event”, i.e. the event of the speaker acquiring the relevant evidence for her claim. While the empirical focus is on the Bulgarian evidential -l, this work adds to similar proposals about evidential markers in typologically unrelated languages (see Nikolaeva 1999; Fleck 2007; Speas 2010; Kalsang et al. 2013; Lee 2013). The view of evidentiality as a spatiotemporal distance undermines the claim that evidential sentences in Bulgarian have modal force (pace Izvorski 1997; Smirnova 2013) and correctly predicts that speakers are typically committed to the core proposition described by evidential sentences. The paper also discusses the not-at-issue discourse status and projection behavior of the evidential implication, suggesting that evidential meanings belong to the broader class of “conventional implicatures”, in the sense of Potts (2005). The formal proposal, couched in an update semantics, successfully captures not only the meaning of the evidential marker but also the discourse properties of evidential sentences in Bulgarian.

中文翻译：

---

证据性，学习事件和时空距离：保加利亚的观点

传统上，证据的语法类别被认为是为句子所描述的主张标记“信息来源”（参见例如Anderson 1986； Willett 1988； Aikhenvald 2004）。本文辩护认为，证据不必是语义原语，而是可以从句子描述的事件与“学习事件”之间的时空距离以务实的方式得出，即说话者获取有关其主张的相关证据的事件。 。尽管实证研究的重点是保加利亚证据-l，但这项工作为在类型学上不相关的语言中的证据标记提供了类似的建议（参见Nikolaeva 1999； Fleck 2007； Speas 2010； Kalsang等人2013； Lee 2013）。证据是时空距离的观点破坏了保加利亚语中的证据句具有模态作用力的说法（pace Izvorski 1997； Smirnova 2013），并正确地预测说话者通常致力于证据句所描述的核心命题。本文还讨论了证据含义的非现成话语状态和投射行为，表明在Potts（2005）的意义上，证据含义属于“常规含义”的更广泛类别。以更新的语义表达的正式建议书，不仅成功地捕捉了证据标记的含义，而且还成功地捕捉了保加利亚语中证据句的话语特性。（Smirnova 2013），并正确预测说话者通常会致力于证据句所描述的核心命题。本文还讨论了证据含义的非现成话语状态和投射行为，表明在Potts（2005）的意义上，证据含义属于“常规含义”的更广泛类别。正式的提议以一种更新的语义表达，不仅成功地捕捉了证据标记的含义，而且还成功地捕捉了保加利亚语中的证据句的话语特性。（Smirnova 2013），并正确预测说话者通常会致力于证据句所描述的核心命题。本文还讨论了证据含义的非现成话语状态和投射行为，表明在Potts（2005）的意义上，证据含义属于“常规含义”的更广泛类别。正式的提议以一种更新的语义表达，不仅成功地捕捉了证据标记的含义，而且还成功地捕捉了保加利亚语中的证据句的话语特性。