Inlinguistics,mirativity, initially proposed byScott DeLancey, is agrammatical category in alanguage, independent ofevidentiality,^[1][2] that encodes the speaker'ssurprise or the unpreparedness of their mind.^[1][3] Grammatical elements that encode thesemantic category of mirativity are calledmiratives (abbreviatedMIR).^[4][5]

Albanian has a series ofverb forms called miratives oradmiratives. These may express surprise on the part of the speaker, but may also have other functions, such as expressingirony,doubt, orreportedness.^[6] The Albanian use of admirative forms is unique in theBalkan context. It is not translatable into other languages. The expression of neutral reportedness can be rendered by 'apparently'.^[7]

While acknowledging the Balkanist term admiratives, DeLancey (1997) promoted miratives as a cross-linguistic term, which he adapted from Jacobsen's (1964) description of theWasho language.^[8][9] According to DeLancey (1997),Turkish,Hare,Sunwar,Lhasa Tibetan, andKorean exhibit agrammatical category to mark information that is new to the speaker.^[4]

In Turkish, the verbal suffix-miş appears in the same slot as the past tense-di.^[10][11]

While it is reasonable to assume that-miş marks indirectevidentiality^[12] as long as 'inference' and 'hearsay' interpretations^[13] are concerned, this does not explain the 'surprise' use of the suffix in the following sentence:^[13][14]

Citing DeLancey as a predecessor, many researchers have reported miratives in theTibeto-Burman family and other languages.^[15][16]

Mirativity is not necessarily expressed through a category on its own;Aikhenvald (2004) points out that a mirative meaning may also be coded by using other grammatical devices such as anevidential^[17] or tense^[18] marker. This led some researchers to question the status of mirativity as a grammatical category. Lazard (1999) suggested that evidentials and miratives would be subsumed under the termmediative.^[19] Hill argued that the evidence given by DeLancey and byAikhenvald (2004) was either wrong or insufficient.^[20]

InLhasa Tibetan, the direct evidential verb'dug may express mirativity in contrast to the other existential verbs, especially when it is used in astatement on the speaker themselves:^[21][22]

However, the mirative account does not hold for the following sentence, where'dug is used as an auxiliary verb and has nothing to do with surprise, sudden discovery nor unexpectedness:[23]^[24]

While DeLancey (2012) made no mention of Turkish, Sunwar or Korean, he still promoted Hare,Kham, andMagar as clear cases of miratives. Hill (2015) in response provided an alternative analysis of Hare, re-analyzing DeLancey's evidence for 'mirativity' as direct evidentiality.^[25]

Hengeveld and Olbertz (2012) argue against Hill (2012) for miratives as a distinct category, citing data fromTarma Quechua,Ecuadorian Highland Spanish, Xamamauteri (aYanomaman language), Kham, andCupeño.^[26] DeLancey (2012) also argued strenuously against Hill's (2012) claims.^[27][20] Zeisler (2018), focusing on the Tibetic languages, considers both Hill and DeLancey to be partly wrong and partly right, and argues that the relevant categories in Tibetic languages represent grammatical marking of "speaker attitude" rather than of evidentiality.^[28]

Unlike evidentials, miratives may mark novelty of information to anyone involved in the conversation rather than the speaker’s source of information,^[29] although what is labelled as 'miratives' varies in meaning. Aikhenvald (2012) analyses variations of mirative meanings as follows:^[30]

1. Sudden discovery, sudden revelation or realization by the speaker, by the audience (or addressee), or by the main character;
2. Surprise of the speaker, of the audience (or addressee), or of the main character;
3. Unprepared mind of the speaker, of the audience (or addressee), or of the main character;
4. Counter-expectation to the speaker, to the addressee, or to the main character;
5. Information new to the speaker, to the addressee, or to the main character.

Apparently, a mirative marker does not always cover all of those values. For example,!Xun, a NorthernKhoisan language has a mirative particlekohà, which can follow an evidential marker but is incomplementary distribution with the counter-expectation markerkò.^[29] This suggests that mirativity forms a different grammatical category from evidentiality while surprise and counter-expectation are expressed by different particles in the language.

Many languages can express surprise or new information using an interjection like 'Wow!'.^[31] In English, the expression of surprise can be rendered by 'oh, look!' or 'lookee there!'.Intonation can also contribute to expression of mirative meanings.^[32]

Some languages have asentence-final particle (SFP) for mirativity. InCantonese, the SFPwo³ expresses noteworthiness whilewo⁴ is associated with unexpectedness, both of which fit the definition of miratives in contrast with the hearsay evidentialwo⁵.^[33]

Mirativity can be expressed through verbal morphology, as is the case with the "sudden discovery tense" marker-naq inTarma Quechua:^[34][35]

• Dickinson, Connie (2000)."Mirativity in Tsafiki".Studies in Language.24 (2):379–422.doi:10.1075/sl.24.2.06dic.
• Yliniemi, Juha. (2021). Similarity of mirative and contrastive focus: three parameters for describing attention markers.Linguistic Typology.

Look upmirativity in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Summary of mirative postings at LinguistList (includes bibliography)

• Grammatical moods
• Semantics
• Formal semantics (natural language)

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Articles containing Turkish-language text
• Pages with interlinear glosses using two unnamed parameters
• Articles containing Standard Tibetan-language text
• Articles containing Yue Chinese-language text
• Articles containing North Junín Quechua-language text
• CS1 maint: postscript