Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton March 21, 2017

Epistemicity, social identity and politeness marking: A pragmatic analysis of Bajjika verbal inflections

Abhishek Kumar Kashyap and Foong Ha Yap
From the journal Linguistics

Abstract

This article examines the pragmatic uses of the verbal inflections in Bajjika, a Bihari language within the “eastern” group of the Indo-Aryan family. Previous studies have shown that Bajjika has a very complex system of verb-agreement, which is typical of Bihari languages but atypical of other Indo-Aryan languages. Of particular interest here is that Bajjika allows a maximum of two person-agreement slots in its verbal morphology: the first slot for markers that co-index with nominative participants, and the second slot for those markers that co-index with non-nominative participants as well as third person referents that are outside the discourse context (cf. Kashyap 2012, The pragmatic principles of agreement in Bajjika verbs. Journal of Pragmatics 44(13). 1868−1887). Our analysis, based on conversational data of Bajjika, reveals that the person-agreement system in Bajjika also registers the social standing of the interlocutors and third person referents along factors reflecting social hierarchy (e.g., age, rank, profession, and social class). Additionally, the non-nominative person-agreement markers (involving second and third but not first person reference) combine with future tense markers to yield epistemic effects (e.g., pragmatic softening or hedging) that contribute to the negotiation of face-needs among discourse participants and discourse referents. These findings have implications for the relationship between deictic elements (e.g., tense and person-agreement markers) and politeness strategies, and may shed light on the pragmatic uses of verbal inflections in other Bihari languages as well as other languages with verbal morphology that encode deictic information.

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this article was funded by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for the following two projects: (i) Evidentiality, Epistemicity and Politeness Marking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective (Project No: HKPU G-UB76) and (ii) Addressee-oriented Agreement Marking and Politeness in East Indo-Aryan Languages (Project No. HKPU G-YBGG).

References

Albizu, Pablo. 2002. Basque morphology: Redefining cases. In Xabier Artiagoitia, Patxi Goenaga & Joseba A. Lakarra (eds.), Erramu boneta: Festschrift essays for Rudolf P. De Rijk, 1–19. Bilbao: UPV/EHU. Search in Google Scholar

Antonov, Anton. 2013. Grammaticalization of allocutivity markers in Japanese and Korean in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Shared grammaticalization: With special focus on the transeurasian languages, 317–340. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Antonov, Anton. 2015. Verbal allocutivity in a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 19(1). 55–85. Search in Google Scholar

Arun, Awadheshwar. 1972. Bajjikā, hindī aur bhojpurī kā tulnātmak adhyayan (A comparative study of Bajjika, Hindi and Bhojpuri). Muzaffarpur: Kumud Prakashan. Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang & Yogendra P. Yādva. 1999. Face vs. empathy: The social foundation of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37(3). 481−518. Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987[1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Byon, Andrew Sangpil. 2006. The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests. Journal of Politeness Research 2(2). 247–276. Search in Google Scholar

Cardona, George & Danesh Jain (eds.). 2003. The Indo-Aryan languages. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Celle, Agnès. 2005. The French future tense and English will as markers of epistemic modality. Languages in Contrast 5(2). 181−218. Search in Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Politeness as a feature: So important and so rare. Linguistik Online 51. http://www.linguistik-online.de/51_12/corbett.pdf (accessed 5 April 2014). Search in Google Scholar

Endo, Tomoko. 2006. Experiencer defocusing and the grammaticalization of emotion predicates: The case of love and fear in Mandarin Chinese. Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 75–84. Search in Google Scholar

García Negroni, María Marta & Adriana Caldiz. 2014. Prosody, polyphony and politeness: A polyphonic approach to prosodic configurations common to French and Spanish. Journal of Politeness Research 10(1). 63–96. Search in Google Scholar

Gili Fivela, Barbara & Carla Bazzanella. 2014. The relevance of prosody and context to the interplay between intensity and politeness. An exploratory study on Italian. Journal of Politeness Research 10(1). 97–126. Search in Google Scholar

Gil-Salom, Luz & Carmen Soler-Mo. 2009. Interacting with the reader: Politeness strategies in engineering research article discussions. International Journal of English Studies 9(3). 175−189. Search in Google Scholar

Grierson, George Abraham 1968 [1903]. Linguistic Survey of India, vol. V, part II. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in language, as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6. 322−361. Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edn. London: Hodder Arnold. Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, Björn & Ferdinand De Haan (eds.). 2009. Modals in the languages of Europe: A reference work. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1 ↔ 2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64 (2). 83–104. Search in Google Scholar

Hoye, Leo Francis. 2005. “You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!” Modality studies: Contemporary research and future directions, part I. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8). 1295–1321. Search in Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz De Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo & Vsevolod Kapatsinski. 2012. The apprehensive: Fear as endophoric evidence and its pragmatics in English, Mandarin, and Russian. Journal of Pragmatics 44(4). 346–373. Search in Google Scholar

Kachru, Yamuna, Braj B. Kachru & Tej K. Bhatia. 1976. The notion ‘subject’: A note on Hindi–Urdu, Kashmiri and Punjabi. In Manindra K. Verma (ed.), The notion of subject in South Asian languages, 79–108. Madison, WI: South Asian Language and Area Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Search in Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar. 2012. The pragmatic principles of agreement in Bajjika verbs. Journal of Pragmatics 44(13). 1868−1887. Search in Google Scholar

Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar. 2014. The Bajjika language and speech community. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 227. 209–224. Search in Google Scholar

Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar. 2016. The representation of gender in Bajjika grammar and discourse. In Julie Abbou & Fabienne Baider (eds.), Gender and the periphery: Grammatical and social gender from the margins. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar. in press. On the linguistic resources of Bajjika. In Vibha Chauhan (ed.), People’s linguistic survey of India: The languages of Bihar. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Search in Google Scholar

Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. forthcoming. Describing Indian English: Trends and some key challenges – the case of modality. Linguistics and the Human Sciences. Search in Google Scholar

Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Foong Ha Yap. 2015. Addressee-oriented agreement markers in Indo-Aryan languages. Manuscript. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Search in Google Scholar

Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Foong Ha Yap. 2016. Allocutivity in Indo-Aryan languages: On the relationship between addressee-oriented agreement marking and politeness in Indo-Aryan languages. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, University of Naples Federico II, 31 August–03 September. Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 167–206. Search in Google Scholar

Lim, Ni-Eng. 2011. From Subjectivity to intersubjectivity: Epistemic marker Wo Juede in Chinese. In Yun Xiao, Liang Tao & Hooi Ling Soh (eds.), Current Issues in Chinese Linguistics, 265–300. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Search in Google Scholar

Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Canzhong Wu. 2008. Multilingual studies as a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing applications of language studies, 146−221. London: Continuum. Search in Google Scholar

Mortelmans, Tanja. 2012. Epistemic MUST and its cognates in German and Dutch: The subtle differences. Journal of Pragmatics 44(13). 2150−2164. Search in Google Scholar

Mortelmans, Tanja, Kasper Boye & Johan Van Der Auwera. 2009. Modals in the Germanic languages. In Björn Hansen & Ferdinand De Haan (eds.), Modals in the languages of Europe: A reference work, 11−69. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Nadeu, Marianna & Pilar Prieto. 2011. Pitch range, gestural information, and perceived politeness in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3). 841–854. Search in Google Scholar

Navarro, Antonio Hidalgo & Adrián Cabedo Nebot. 2014. On the importance of the prosodic component in the expression of linguistic im/politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 10(1). 5–27. Search in Google Scholar

Oyharçabal, Beñat. 1993. Verb agreement with nonarguments: On allocutive agreement. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz De Urbina (eds.), Generative studies in Basque linguistics, 89–114. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Posio, Pekka. 2014. Subject expression in grammaticalizing constructions: The case of creo and acho ‘I think’ in Spanish and Portuguese. Journal of Pragmatics 63. 5–18. Search in Google Scholar

Rao, Rajiv 2006. On intonation’s relationship with pragmatic meaning in Spanish. In Timothy L. Face & Carol A. Klee (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 103–115. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Search in Google Scholar

Stewart, Miranda. 2005. Politeness in Britain: It’s only a suggestion. In Leo Hickey & Miranda Stewart (eds.), Politeness in Europe, 116−129. Clevedon & Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Search in Google Scholar

Strauss, Claudia. 2004. Cultural standing in expression of opinion. Language in Society 33(2). 161−194. Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, volume 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers, 313–339. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Upadhyay, Shiv. R. 2003. Nepali requestive acts: Linguistic indirectness and politeness reconsidered. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11). 1651–1677. Search in Google Scholar

Verma, Manindra K. 1991. Exploring the parameters of agreement: The case of Magahi. Language Sciences 13(2). 125–143. Search in Google Scholar

Verma, Manindra K. 1993. Linguistic strategies of politeness in Bhojpuri and Magahi. South Asian Language Review 3(2). 1–16. Search in Google Scholar

Yadava, Yogendra P. 1996. Verb agreement in Maithili. Journal of Nepalese Studies 1(1). 109–121. Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Ying & Foong Ha Yap. 2012. “I am sure and I hedge”: Fear expression kongpa as a rhetorical interactive strategy in Mandarin conversation. Ms. Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Search in Google Scholar

Yap, Foong Ha, Winnie Chor & Jiao Wang. 2012. On the development of epistemic ‘fear’ markers: An analysis of Mandarin kongpa and Cantonese taipaa. In Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds.), Covert patterns of modality, 312−342. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars. Search in Google Scholar

Yap, Foong Ha & Winnie Oi-Wan Chor. 2014. Epistemic, evidential, and attitudinal markers in clause-medial position in Cantonese. In Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds.), Modes of modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammar, 219–260. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Appendix. Abbreviations

1first personimpimperative
2second personinfinfinitive
3third personintinterrogative
accaccusativeintjinterjection
adjadjectiveipfimperfective
agr1nominative agreementloclocative
agr2non-nominative agreementmmale
allocallocutivemhmid-honorific
aspaspectmodmodality
auxauxiliarynegnegative
benbenefactivenfutnon-future tense
compcomplementnhnon- honorific
datdativennomnon-nominative
defdefinitenessnomnominate
demdemonstrativenumnumber
dimdiminutivepasspassive
emphemphasispfvperfective
ffemaleplplural
focfocuspnproper name
futfuture tenseprogprogressive
gengenitiveprspresent tense
hhonorificprtparticle
habhabitualpstpast tense
hhhigh-honorificsgsingular
Published Online: 2017-3-21
Published in Print: 2017-5-24

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston