Evidential and epistemic adverbials in Lithuanian: evidence from intra-linguistic and cross-linguistic analysis

In the recent decade the realisations of evidentiality and epistemic modality in European languages have received a great scholarly interest and resulted in important investigations concerning the relation between evidentiality and epistemic modality, their means of expression and meaning extensions in various types of discourse. The present paper deals with the adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiškiai ‘clearly’, ryškiai ‘visibly, clearly’, matyt ‘apparently, evidently’ and regis ‘seemingly’, which derive from the source domain of perception, and the epistemic necessity adverbials tikriausiai/veikiausiai/greičiausiai ‘most probably’, būtinai ‘necessarily’ and neabejotinai ‘undoubtedly’. The aim of the paper is to explore the morphosyntactic properties of the adverbials when they are used as evidential or epistemic markers and compare the distribution of their evidential and epistemic functions in Lithuanian fiction, news and academic discourse. The data have been drawn from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian and the bidirectional translation corpus ParaCorpEN→LT→EN (Šolienė 2012, 2015). The quantitative findings reveal distributional differences of the adverbials under study across different types of discourse. Functional variation of the evidential perception-based adverbials is determined to a great extent by the degree of epistemic commitment, evidenced not only by intra-linguistic but also cross-linguistic data. The non-perception based adverbials tikriausiai/veikiausiai/greičiausiai ‘most

In the recent decade the realisations of evidentiality and epistemic modality in European languages have received a great scholarly interest and resulted in important investigations concerning the relation between evidentiality and epistemic modality, their means of expression and meaning extensions in various types of discourse.The present paper deals with the adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly, clearly', matyt 'apparently, evidently' and regis 'seemingly', which derive from the source domain of perception, and the epistemic necessity adverbials tikriausiai/veikiausiai/greičiausiai 'most probably', būtinai 'necessarily' and neabejotinai 'undoubtedly'.The aim of the paper is to explore the morphosyntactic properties of the adverbials when they are used as evidential or epistemic markers and compare the distribution of their evidential and epistemic functions in Lithuanian fiction, news and academic discourse.The data have been drawn from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian and the bidirectional translation corpus ParaCorp EN→LT→EN (Šolienė 2012, 2015).The quantitative findings reveal distributional differences of the adverbials under study across different types of discourse.Functional variation of the evidential perception-based adverbials is determined to a great extent by the degree of epistemic commitment, evidenced not only by intra-linguistic but also cross-linguistic data.The non-perception based adverbials tikriausiai/veikiausiai/greičiausiai 'most
As a result of the conceptual distinction between evidentiality and epistemic modality, such markers as apparently, evidently, obviously, clearly, reportedly, allegedly and supposedly in English have been regarded as evidential markers (Marín-Arrese 2007, 2009;Celle 2009), whereas probably, perhaps, certainly, definitely as markers of epistemic modality (Marín-Arrese 2007, 2009;Carretero & Zamorano-Mansilla 2013;Boye 2016).For example, Celle (2009) argues that the hearsay adverbials reportedly, allegedly and supposedly do not mark the speaker's/writer's commitment to the proposition but signal his/her distance from the sources of information or propositional content.Similarly, Wiemer (2006) proves that the epistemic meaning components of the particles podobno 'supposedly' and rzekomo 'allegedly' in Polish can be cancelled in some contexts, and Alonso-Almeida (2012) claims that the adverbs clearly and obviously do not necessarily entail the evaluation of the truth-value of the proposition but modify the proposition in terms of the source of information.
However, some scholars maintain that in languages like English evidential adverbials should be regarded as "epistential" because they qualify the proposition in terms of both evidence and degree of the speaker's/writer's commitment (Faller 2002;Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007;Carretero & Zamorano-Mansilla 2013).For example, the adverbials clearly, obviously, evidently refer to the source of information and display the meaning of epistemic certainty (Carretero & Zamorano-Mansilla 2013, 320).The evidential meaning of the adverbials is their primary meaning, whereas the meaning of epistemic certainty is secondary.The "epistential" nature of the evidential adverbials is also disclosed by their translation correspondences in parallel corpora (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007).The adverbials obviously and clearly have their evidential and epistemic translation equivalents in French, Swedish, Dutch and German.
The distinct features of evidential and epistemic adverbials as well as relationship between the evidential and epistemic meaning can be best explained within the category of epistemicity, which includes the sub-category of evidentiality and epistemic modality (Boye 2012) and accounts not only for the internal meaning relationships within each sub-category but also for external sub-categorial cross-cuts.Epistemicity is among "integrated models of evidentiality and epistemic modality", in which both categories "intermingle in various degrees" (Squartini 2016, 64).The sub-categorial cross-cut relevant to this research concerns the inferential meaning of evidentiality and the meaning of probability.Inferentials are the linking element of evidentiality and epistemic modality as "they can be considered equally epistemic, in that inferences are intrinsically less reliable than direct perceptions, and evidential since inferential reasoning is typically based on external indirect sources" (Squartini 2016, 62).The modal status of inferentials is recognised by Nuyts (2016), who assigns "different degrees of modal commitment" and intrinsic scalarity to inferential markers.However, Nuyts (2017, 72-73) emphasises that inferential evidentiality "refers to the reasoning process as such", whereas epistemic modality "denotes nothing at all in terms of the reasoning process leading to <...> [epistemic] assessment".
The inferential meaning in this paper will be described along the parameters of external and internal sources of evidence distinguished by Squartini (2008, 925).External sources of evidence may pertain to sensory evidence or written cognitive sources available to the speaker/writer, while internal sources of evidence refer to the speaker's/writer's knowledge of the world and assumptions.Squartini (2016, 64) admits that "lacking an external source of evidence and being totally based on mental reasoning, assumptions are patently problematic as evidential modes of knowing and this produces additional discrepancies in the interpretation of this function in epistemic prominent languages".However, the distinction between external and internal source based inferences seems to be valid for some makers in Italian and French (Squartini 2008).
The present study focuses on perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly, clearly', matyt 'apparently, evidently', regis 'seemingly' and non-perception based adverbials tikriausiai/veikiausiai/greičiausiai 'most probably', būtinai 'necessarily' and neabejotinai 'undoubtedly' in Lithuanian across different types of discourse (fiction, academic and newspaper).Due to the limited scope of the paper, adverbials based on verbs of appearance (atrodo 'it seems', rodos 'it seems'), distinguished from verbs of perception proper (see, hear) in Gisborne and Holmes (2007), were not considered.The study aims to explore the morphosyntactic properties of the adverbials under analysis, their scope and functions in discourse.Following the parameters established for evidential and epistemic adverbials in Bulgarian (Wiemer & Kampf 2012), the current study identifies evidential and epistemic functions of the perception and non-perception based adverbials in Lithuanian and discusses the cases of their evidential-epistemic overlap and factors triggering it.The meaning and functions of the adverbials under study are also analysed taking into account their English correspondences in the parallel corpus.Although in individual studies, functions of evidential (Usonienė 2013;Ruskan 2013Ruskan , 2015) ) and epistemic adverbials (Šolienė 2012, 2015) have been scrutinised, there is no study accounting for the qualitative and quantitative distribution of perception and non-perception based adverbials across different types of discourse.Moreover, there has been no study comparing functional differences of inferential markers deriving from the domain of perception.

Data and methods
The present study has been carried out by applying corpus-based methodology, which has been proved to be an effective tool in describing the functional distribution of evidential and epistemic markers in Germanic (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007), Romance (Cornillie 2010), Slavic (Wiemer & Kampf 2012) and Baltic languages (Usonienė & Šolienė 2010;Šinkūnienė 2012;Smetona & Usonienė 2012;Ruskan 2012;Chojnicka 2012).As shown in the studies mentioned above, in order to obtain a comprehensive functional semantic profile of the markers of epistemicity (evidentiality and epistemic modality), it is necessary to analyse them in their authentic contexts of use, which are efficiently provided by corpora.
The data for the current study have been retrieved from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (CCLL) (http://tekstynas.vdu.lt/),namely from the sub-corpus of fiction (15,765,554 words) and the central newspapers Lietuvos Rytas (8,695,454 words) and Bernardinai.lt(3,115,891 words) and from the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian (CorALit) (http://www.coralit.lt/,about nine million words), which is comprised of academic texts published from 1999 to 2009.The Corpus of Academic Lithuanian contains the sub-corpora of biomedical sciences, humanities, physical sciences, social sciences and technological sciences.To complement the findings from the monolingual corpora, data were also drawn from the bidirectional parallel corpus ParaCorp EN→LT→EN (Šolienė 2012, 2015).The latest corpus-based studies into epistemicity in Lithuanian and English (Usonienė & Šolienė 2010;Usonienė & Šinkūnienė 2013;Usonienė & Šolienė forthcoming) show that parallel corpora help to establish functional semantic intricacies of evidential and epistemic markers which cannot be identified by relying on data retrieved only from monolingual corpora.
The study combined both quantitative and qualitative analysis.The quantitative analysis covered the overall frequencies of the perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly', ryškiai 'visibly, clearly', matyt 'apparently, evidently', regis 'seemingly' and non-perception based adverbials tikriausiai/veikiausiai/greičiausiai 'most probably', būtinai 'necessarily' and neabejotinai 'undoubtedly' in the corpora used.Since the sizes of the corpora differ, the raw frequencies have been normalised per 10,000 words.The purely quantitative results are discussed in Section 3. The qualitative analysis involved drawing a line between the adverbials under study functioning as manner or sentence (epistemic/ evidential) modifiers and exploring evidential and epistemic functions of the adverbials in question from the monolingual and parallel corpora.The data show that the perception-based adverbials are more frequent than the nonperception based adverbials across all the types of discourse, which highlights the primacy of perception in communication.As Caballero and Paradis (2015, 1) claim, "sensory perceptions play a crucial role in our daily encounters with the world in all kinds of activities".Perceptual dimension turns out to be significant in fiction, which is not surprising, because fiction at least partially resembles spoken discourse, which is full of spontaneity (Chafe 1986, 262) and reference to different types of evidence.

Adverbials
The fact that the non-perception based adverbials, which express the speaker's/writer's degree of commitment, as will be shown further, are more frequent in fiction than in the other types of discourse is in line with Biber et al.'s (1999, 867 ̶ 868) findings that epistemic adverbials are most frequent in spoken discourse and fiction.Previous studies (Ruskan 2013(Ruskan , 2015) ) also show that the overall frequency of evidential adverbials and complement taking predicates differs in fiction and academic discourse.
The most common perception-based adverbials in the sub-corpora under study are matyt 'apparently, evidently', aiškiai 'clearly' and regis 'seemingly'.As matyt 'apparently, evidently' derives from the infinitive form matyti 'see', one of the most frequent verbs of perception (Usonienė 2003, 194), it also tends to be used frequently.It is a convenient means for communicating indirect types of evidence based on visual clues, as will be 1 The predicative uses of matyt 'it seems that' and regis 'it seems that' (e.g. a complement taking predicate with a that clause, etc.) are not included in the calculation.
shown in further sections.Aiškiai 'clearly' is more frequent than matyt 'apparently, evidently' only in academic discourse; however, it should be noted that the occurrences of aiškiai 'clearly' presented in Table 1 include the manner use of the adverbial.In its evidential use, aiškiai 'clearly' is less frequent than matyt 'apparently, evidently'.After discarding the manner uses of akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly' and ryškiai 'visibly, clearly', it turned out that the second most frequent adverbial is regis 'seemingly', which derives from the reflexive predicative regis(i) 'see/behold'.
Among the non-perception based adverbials the most frequent is tikriausiai 'most probably' in fiction and news, whereas greičiausiai 'most probably' is the most frequent in academic discourse.The argumentative force of the latter type of discourse is also marked by the fact that the second most frequent adverbial is neabejotinai 'undoubtedly', which expresses epistemic certainty.In news discourse, neabejotinai 'undoubtedly' is slightly less frequent than in academic discourse.
(CCLL-news) 'In fact, both plays clearly (lit.visibly) differ not only in the problems raised but also the actors' expression, stage arrangement.They both aim to discuss important issues.' The adverbials above can be interpreted as 'in a clear/evident way' and 'it is clear/ evident that'.As claimed in Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007,166), the link between the two meanings may be close.In a similar vein, Carretero and Zamorano-Mansilla (2013, 344) maintain that the manner meaning of adverbials "is not incompatible with their evidential meaning." The non-perception based adverbials būtinai 'necessarily', veikiausiai 'most probably' and neabejotinai 'undoubtedly' never function as manner adverbials, whereas greičiausiai and tikriausiai 'most probably' may potentially have a two-fold function: they may feature as predicate or sentence adverbials.In the following example greičiausiai 'most probably' denotes manner: (26) LT-orig: Jo slaugomieji ligoniai greičiausiai pasveikdavo.EN-trans: The patients he cared for recovered the quickest.
As for tikriausiai, it has the potential to be used as a manner adverbial: (27) Šis prietaisas tikriausiai rodo laiką.(Holvoet & Pajėdienė 2005, 99) The paraphrase would be 'This device shows the time most exactly'.However, such use of tikriausiai 'most probably' has not been attested in the analysis of the authentic data.The table below indicates the percentage of the overall use of the adverbials in question as sentence adverbials (the remaining part is their manner or ambiguous use).
The adverbials matyt 'apparently, evidently' and regis 'seemingly' as well as būtinai 'necessarily' and neabejotinai 'undoubtedly' are not included since they cannot function as manner adverbials.As the data in the table show, the non-perception based adverbials mainly function as sentence modifiers, whereas the perception-based adverbials (to a certain extent except for akivaizdžiai 'evidently') behave differently.In fiction and news discourse, akivaizdžiai 'evidently' is used more frequently as a sentence adverbial than a manner adverbial.

Adverbials
In academic discourse, its use as a sentence adverbial is also quite salient (37%).The adverbials aiškiai 'clearly' and ryškiai 'visibly, clearly' are used more frequently as manner adverbials.It should be noted that in fiction the use of ryškiai 'visibly, clearly' as a sentence adverbial is rather marginal.
The manner use of the perception-based adverbials is confirmed by their translation correspondences (TCs) found in the ParaCorp EN→LT→EN , such as in an obvious way, obviously, clearly, distinctly, vividly, acutely, plainly, visibly: (28) LT-orig: Čia mes šitai aiškiai suvokiame.EN-trans: We are acutely aware of this here.
(29) LT-orig: O senoje Jurbarko katalikų bažnyčios knygoje aiškiai parašyta <...> EN-trans: In Jurbarkas' old church books, the following is clearly written <...> Such translation correspondences as acutely aware or clearly written can only be unambiguously interpreted as denoting manner.The same could be said about the TCs of greičiausiai 'most quickly' as a predicate modifier.In such cases it is translated as as quickly as possible, as soon as possible, the quickest.
The evidential adverbials evidently, obviously and clearly in English and their correspondences in Romance, Slavic and Baltic languages all originate in their lexical meaning as adverbs of visual perception, the primary semantic component of which is "easily seen, noticed, perceived The claim that the girl was trying to calm down by throwing stones into the water (30) and the judgment about the local or Italian or French textiles ( 32) is based on visual information accessible to the speaker/writer (the view of the girl and the clothes seen in portraits), while the fact of somebody coming (31) and imagining things ( 33) is deduced from auditory information.Despite the fact that all of these markers denote inferences based on perceptual evidence, the degree of the speaker's/writer's commitment is different.The adverbials matyt 'apparently, evidently' and regis 'seemingly', as also shown in Usonienė (2015), reveal an epistemic extension of doubt.The type of visual and auditory perception is not reliable to such an extent that the speaker/writer could modify the proposition with markers expressing certainty as in ( 32) and ( 33).The same epistemic overtones can be observed when these markers express inferences drawn from internal evidence: (34) Bet liberali politika ir šiuo požiūriu turi pranašumų, kurie, matyt, nemažai prisidėjo prie Estijos sėkmės.Liberali politika stengiasi apriboti <...>.(CCLLnews) 'But in this respect liberal politics also has advantages, which apparently contributed greatly to Estonia's success.Liberal politics tries to restrict <...>.' (35) <...> nerimstant aistroms Indijoje, jos užvirė kitoje Azijos vietoje -Indonezijoje.Regis, ten gali pasikartoti Filipinų scenarijus, ir dėl korupcijos skandalų teks <...>.(CCLL-news) '<...> unceasing unrest in India spread to another place in Asia -Indonesia.Seemingly, a scenario from the Philippines may happen there, and because of corruption scandals it will be necessary <...>.' In ( 34) and ( 35) the inferential adverbials matyt 'apparently, evidently' and regis 'seemingly' are used because some facts known to the speaker/writer (internal evidence) do not allow for drawing stronger epistemic commitment.In contrast, akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly' and ryškiai 'visibly, clearly' appear in emphatic contexts: (36) Per pirminius rinkimus labai išryškejo amerikiečių ilgesys permainoms -jie akivaizdžiai nepatenkinti dabartine politika.Jau ir H. Clinton mažiau kalba apie savo patirtį ir žinias, labiau apie savo norą keisti Ameriką.(CCLL-news) ʻThe initial elections showed Americans' great longing for changes -they are evidently dissatisfied with the present politics.Even H. Clinton talks less about her experience and knowledge and more about her wish to change America.' (37) Izraelio vyriausybės kantrybė po šių krūvinų išpuolių aiškiai išseko -jau vakar aukščiausiuose valdžios sluoksniuose pasigirdo kategoriški reikalavimai smogti ne tik teroristams, bet ir <...> (CCLL-news) ʻAfter those bloody attacks the Israeli government clearly lost their patiencealready yesterday in the highest government ranks one could hear pressing demands to attack not only terrorists but also <...>.' (38) Tarp trenerių ryškiai pirmauja Jonas Kazlauskas ("Lietuvos rytas", 126).(CCLLnews) 'The leading position among coaches is clearly (lit.visibly is held) held by Jonas Kazlauskas ("Lietuvos rytas", 126).' In ( 36)-( 38) the perception based adverbials serve as means of argumentation because they refer to sound evidence that cannot be refuted.The speaker/writer has evidence that Americans are not satisfied with the present political situation (36), that the Israeli government lost their patience (37) and that Jonas Kazlauskas is the leader among basketball coaches (38).If there were some doubts concerning the veracity of the available evidence, more appropriate markers would be matyt 'apparently, evidently' and regis 'seemingly'.
As Caballero and Paradis (2015, 6) argue, "references to sensory experience in discourse, in combination with other clues, are important indications of reliable modes of knowing as evidence in favour of a high degree of speaker credibility".The following translation correspondences confirm the fact that the perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai 'evidently' in (39) and aiškiai 'clearly' in (40) denote inferences drawn from external sensory evidence or internal evidence and denote a high degree of certainty: (39) LT-orig: <...> dulkės ant stalų nepaliestos, tačiau kažkas akivaizdžiai rausėsi po mano daiktus.EN-trans: <...> even the dust on the tables hasn't been touched, but someone has obviously rummaged through my things.
Here the speaker/writer makes an evidential judgment in accordance with some external evidence available, namely, the untouched dust on the table, and akivaizdžiai 'evidently' is rendered into English by the prototypical evidential marker obviously.Moreover, the interplay between evidential and epistemic functions manifests itself in such TCs as surely and indeed: (40) LT-orig: Du žmonės, visą laiką buvę šalia manęs ir net tam tikra prasme dalimi manęs, nejučiomis, bet aiškiai ėmė nuo manęs tolti.EN-trans: Two persons, who had been close to me all the time and even in a certain sense a part of me, slowly but surely began to draw away from me.
The translation correspondences of matyt 'apparently, evidently' also show that in certain contexts it may convey the speaker's/writer's commitment to the truth of the proposition.The semantic mirror of matyt 'apparently, evidently' (see A plausible explanation for such a wide profile of translational correspondences seems to be different types of evidence available for the speaker/writer.As Boye and Harder (2009) maintain, different nuances of evidence can be related to different degrees of reliability.Similarly, Plungian (2001, 354) claims that "an epistemic marker contains more evidential properties when the source of the speaker's hypothesis is specified".If the proposition is based on the evidence inferred from observed results, the translational correspondences of matyt 'apparently, evidently' are the prototypical markers of evidentiality, for example, such adverbs as obviously, evidently and apparently or epistemic-evidential must: (41) LT-orig: Prie batų parduotuvės grūdosi įkaitusios moteriškės: matyt, ko nors atvežė.
EN-trans: Some excited women were shoving by the shoe store: apparently, something had been delivered.
Here the speaker/writer makes an inference about his/her mother's willingness to express her view and this judgement is most probably based on her appearance or her typical behaviour; however, by using the adverbial, he/she entertains doubt and refrains from rendering his/her assertion as a fact.
The analysis of the correspondences of matyt 'apparently, evidently' and regis 'seemingly' shows that the semantic structure of these modal words retains the element of inference which is an important factor in the extension of meaning from direct visual perception to mental perception and then further to evidentials (Usonienė 2003;Wiemer 2007).The data support the inferential nature of matyt 'apparently, evidently' and regis 'seemingly'; however, self-inference, as an unreliable source of information, triggers the meaning of uncertainty.What is more, it seems that different nuances and types of evidence available for the speaker/writer have an impact on the different degrees of his/her commitment to the assertion made (cf.Boye & Harder 2009, see Cornillie 2009 on reliability).

Epistemic adverbials
The relation between the domains of evidentiality and epistemic modality is not always clear.Plungian (2001, 354) claims that the evidential value is always inherently present in the epistemic meaning: "while an evidential supplement can always be seen in an epistemic marker, the opposite does not always hold: not all evidential markers are modal in that they do not all necessarily imply an epistemic judgment".The interplay of inferential evidentiality and the domain of epistemic modality is traditionally exemplified by the English modal auxiliary must: adverbs, i.e. they have the most productive adverb forming suffix -(i)ai (Ambrazas 1997, 378) 'presumably', prawdopodobnie 'probably', chyba 'possibly, maybe', pewnie 'certainly' or (być) może 'maybe, perhaps' should not be included in the inventory of evidential markers.They refer to inferences and/or assumptions, but beyond the modification of the speaker's epistemic assessment (on a continuum between epistemic possibility and necessity) they do not specify where these inferences arise from; they just refer to mental operations that can be based on anything.
The translational correspondences of tikriausiai/greičiausiai/veikiausiai 'most probably', būtinai 'necessarily' and neabejotinai 'undoubtedly' show that most frequently they are translated into English by adverbials conveying the speaker's/writer's epistemic commitment to the truth-value of the proposition.The adverbials probably, no doubt, undoubtedly, most likely, certainly, surely, perhaps, quite possibly make up 54 % of all the TCs.Interestingly, very often in translations the markers of epistemic necessity are used interchangeably with the markers of epistemic possibility, not taking into account the retention of the same level of certainty and likelihood: (51) LT-orig: Na tai tikriausiai šia suknia vilkėjo elektromagnetinė stebuklinga mergelė Maranela.
EN-trans: So, perhaps it was the miraculous electromagnetic maiden, Maranela, who wore this gown.
This might be indicative of the fact that there are language-specific differences in the conceptualisation of likelihood.Moreover, the verbal TCs of the Lithuanian adverbials in question make up 31% of the concordance.Among them feature such verbs as must, seem, suppose.This may suggest that in some contexts, epistemic adverbials in question may have evidential extension or vice versa (also see Section 5): ( The non-perception based epistemic adverbials tikriausiai, veikiausiai and greičiausiai 'most probably' may be prone to evidential extension in certain contexts.Their interpretation is extremely context sensitive when one deals with perception based evidence: (53) LT-orig: Nuotraukoje -kaulėto veido vyras, veikiausiai ne lietuvis.EN-trans: In the photograph there's a bony-faced man, probably not a Lithuanian.
In example (53) the speaker/writer makes a judgement based on some perceptual evidence available, namely, the photo of a man shows some of his features that are typically non-Lithuanian.Perception-based evidence yielding evidential extension of these adverbials mainly prevails in fiction.In academic prose and news discourse, conceptual evidence underlying the inferences is more common.

Preliminary conclusions
The current study focused on the functions and distribution of evidential and epistemic adverbials in Lithuanian across different types of discourse (fiction, academic discourse and newspaper discourse).Overall frequencies of the adverbials in different types of discourse show that perception-based markers are more dominant than non-perception based ones, which highlights the importance of perception in discourse.The distributional differences of the adverbials are found in fiction, at least partially representing spoken discourse, and news and academic discourse.
The perception-based adverbials, except for akivaizdžiai 'evidently' in fiction and news discourse, function more frequently as manner adverbials rather than evidential sentence adverbials or show semantic ambiguity between the manner and evidential use and can be regarded as "semantic blends" (Hasselgård 2010).The non-perception based adverbials -tikriausiai/greičiausiai/veikiausiai 'most probably', būtinai 'necessarily' and neabejotinai 'undoubtedly' -are the primary adverbial markers of epistemic necessity in Lithuanian; the only marker that can function as an adverbial of manner is greičiausiai 'most probably', but it is not frequent in this function.
The sentence adverbials originally deriving from the source domain of perception display evidential (inferential) interpretation.They denote inferences drawn from external sensory evidence or internal evidence.The feature that sets apart the inferential perception-based adverbials is the degree of epistemic commitment.Matyt 'apparently, evidently' and regis 'seemingly' reveal some doubt concerning the truth value of the proposition, triggered by insufficient or less reliable sources of evidence, whereas akivaizdžiai 'evidently', aiškiai 'clearly' and ryškiai 'visibly, clearly' are used in emphatic contexts conveying strong epistemic commitment.Thus the perception-based adverbials expressing some doubt make the speaker's/writer's argumentation more cautious, whereas adverbials conveying certainty, supported by external sensory evidence or internal evidence, strengthen the validity of the proposition.The non-perception based epistemic adverbials do not show evidential extensions to any great extent.They are used as markers of high probability reinforcing the speaker's/writer's position.
The analysis of the translational paradigms seems to offer proof to support the hypothesis that the distinction between low and high degree of probability might be blurred in Lithuanian (cf.Usonienė 2007) and that tikriausiai 'most probably' and matyt 'apparently, evidently' may cover the whole spectrum of the epistemic scale and are multifunctional.Thus the combination of monolingual and parallel corpora contributes to more effective identification of the functional profile of the markers as is also shown in Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007), who resort to translations as a clue to studying multifunctionality and investigating the speaker's/writer's use of modal adverbs.

Table 2 .
Percentage of sentence adverbial use

Table 3 .
Table 3) shows a great diversity of its translational correspondences.Translational correspondences of matyt 'apparently, evidently' in ParaCorp EN→LT→EN 42) LT-orig: …velnias, galva kaip medinė, atmerkęs akis pamato skersai stalo pamestas kelnes, matyt, jau labai gražus parėjo… EN-trans: ...hell, his head feels like wood, when he opens his eyes he sees his pants thrown across the table, he must have come home a pretty sight…In the two examples above the speaker/writer clearly makes inferences on the clues observed in the context of utterance.If the available evidence is inferred by logical reasoning, the translational correspondences of matyt 'apparently, evidently' encode a lower degree of certainty, as shown below:(43) LT-orig: Pačiam vienam būtų visai prastai.Matyt, ir Vytautas negali likti vienas.EN-trans: If I were left all by myself, it would be much worse.Quite possibly, Vytautas can't stay alone either.
. They are used to express high probability, i.e. epistemic necessity.The paraphrase for epistemic necessity would be 'It is necessarily the case that…'(Palmer  2001, 7): EN-trans: Sooner or later Šventaragis would have to learn everything; he undoubtedly would eventually mature to those questions, just as I had.(50)LT-orig:Šis nužudymas greičiausiai sukels dar daugiau abejonių.EN-trans:This murder most probably will raise many more doubts.A similar argument regarding some of the Polish adverbials is given inWiemer (2006,  60):<...>the lack of indication of any specific source of the respective epistemic state (attitude) is the reason for which epistemic adverbs or particles like przypuszczalnie 52) LT-orig: O dabar cipsi ir išsigandęs dairosi tamsoje.Jis greičiausiai ir pribudino mane -nuo Tobijo mirties ir Zacharijaus ligos miegu labai jautriai.EN-trans: And now he is fretting, peering into the darkness.He must have awakened me -since Tobias' death and his illness, I sleep very lightly.