Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Person and Knowledge: Introduction

Henrik Bergqvist / Seppo Kittilä
Published Online: 2017-03-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0002

Abstract

The relation between person and epistemicity has been a topic of investigation throughout the humanities, including linguistics, but has mostly been focused on how conceptualisations of these two notions overlap, or diverge. This paper reviews some of these conceptualisations, but also adds a finergrained picture of how they intersect in the world’s languages. Purported categories such as egophoric marking and lesser known expressions such as non-selected arguments (i.e. "ethical datives") are compared to evidentials and modals from a synchronic and diachronic perspective in order to explain how the roles of the speech-act participants as specific arguments relate to their respective function as epistemic authorities. The aim of the paper is to introduce separate contributions relating to such systems as they are found in various parts of the world.

Keywords: agreement; epistemic authority; Jakobson

References

  • Aikhenvald, Y. Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bergqvist. 2012. Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language (News from the field) 36:1, 151-178.Google Scholar

  • Bergqvist. 2015a. Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: an introduction. Special Issue: Epistemic marking in typological perspective, Bergqvist, Henrik and Lila San Roque (eds.), Language Typology and Universals (STUF), 123-141.Google Scholar

  • Bergqvist. 2015b. The role of ‘perspective’ in epistemic marking. Lingua (in press), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.008CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bergqvist. 2016. Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics 82:1, 1-34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bergqvist. in press. Egophoric marking in interrogatives. In Norcliffe, Elisabeth and Simeon Floyd and Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bergqvist, Henrik and Seppo Kittilä. in preparation. Non-selected arguments as epistemic marking. MS. Stockholm University.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao, P. and K. V. Subbarao (eds.) Non-nominative subjects, pp. 77 - 112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2008a. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: a typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Huber, B., M. Volkart, and P. Widmer (eds.) Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, pp. 1-14, Halle: IITBS.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2008b. On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. In Corbett, G. G. and M. Noonan (eds.) Case and grammatical relations: papers in honor of Bernard Comrie, pp. 191 - 210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar and Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional Morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description: vol 3 Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. pp. 169-240, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bosse, Solveig, Benjamin Bruening, and Masahiro Yamada. 2012. Affected Experiencers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30:4, 1185-1230.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan, L. Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Camilleri, Maris and Louisa Sadler. 2012. On the Analysis of Non-Selected Datives in Maltese. Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference. CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu. 118-138.Google Scholar

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Creissels, Denis. 2008. Person variation in Akhvakh verb morphology: functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. Language Typology and Universals (STUF), 61:4, 309-325.Google Scholar

  • Creissels, Denis. 2009. Language documentation and verb inflection typology: the case of Northern Akhvakh (Nakh-Daghestanian). Handout at Chronos 9, Paris October 2-4 2009.Google Scholar

  • Curnow, J. Timothy. 2002a. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40:3, 611-627.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Curnow, J. Timothy. 2002b. Types of interaction between evidentials and first-person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics 44:2, 178-196.Google Scholar

  • Curnow, J. Timothy. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27:1, 39-59.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in Discourse and Syntax. Functions of Language 7, 33-77.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1-3, 289-321.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25, 39-62.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 2015. Evidentiality, Modality, Mirativity, and Personal Knowledge. Presentation from a workshop entitled “Person and knowledge: from participant-role to epistemic marking”. Societas Linguistica Europea 48th Annual Meeting, September 2, Leiden University, Holland.Google Scholar

  • Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24:2, 379-421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Garrett, Edward, 2001, Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., and J.L. Morgan (eds.) Speech Acts. pp. 41-58, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Haddad, Youssef A. 2013. Pronouns and intersubjectivity in Lebanese Arabic gossip. Journal of Pragmatics 49, 57-77.Google Scholar

  • Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: finite conjunct and disjunct forms in Newari. In Trail R. (ed.) Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 7. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 95-106.Google Scholar

  • Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential practice: language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Hanks, William F. 2009. Field work on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 10-24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hein, Veronika. 2007. The mirative and its interplay with evidentiality in the Tibetan dialect of Tabo (Spiti). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30:2, 195-215.Google Scholar

  • Hengeveld, Kees, and Marize Mattos Dall’ Aglio Hattnher. 2015. Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics 53:3, 479-524Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2001. Goffman, Garfinkel, Conversation Analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. J. Taylor and S. J. Yates (eds), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. pp. 47-57, London: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45, 1-29.Google Scholar

  • Huber, Brigitte. 2002. The Lende Subdialect of Kyirong Tibetan: a grammatical description with historical annotations. Inauguraldissertation der Philosophisch-historischen Fakultät. Universität Bern. Selbstverlag.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1990 [1957]. Shifters and verbal categories. In Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston (eds.), On language, pp. 386-392, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language; its nature, development, and origin, London: Geroge Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar

  • Kockelman, Paul. 2004 Stance and Subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14, 127-150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Evidentiality in Qiang. In: Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R.M.W. (eds), Studies in evidentiality. pp. 63-78, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 2011. Speech-act participants in modality. http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_modality.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Drew, Paul and Anthony Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction order. pp. 161-227, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Molochieva, Zarina. 2012. Source and status of information in Chechen. Presentation at the SLE 2012, Workshop on “Complex perspective in epistemic marking: the origins, motivations and definitions of intersubjective perspectives in grammar.” August 30th, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

  • Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Oswalt, Robert L. 1986. The Evidential System of Kashaya. In Chafe and Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, pp. 29-45, N.J.: Ablex Pub.Google Scholar

  • Ramirez, Henri. 1997. A fala Tukano dos Ye’pâ-Masa, vol. 1: Gramática. Manaus: Inspetoria SalesianaMissionária da Amazônia and Centro “Iauareté” de Documentação Etnográfica e Missionária.Google Scholar

  • Rule, Murray W. 1977. A comparative study of the Foe, Huli and Pole languages of Papua New Guinea. Oceania Linguistic Monographs 20. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar

  • San Roque, Lila. 2008. An Introduction to Duna Grammar. PhD dissertation, Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • San Roque, Lila, and Robyn Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16, 111-167.Google Scholar

  • San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd, and Elisabeth Norcliffe. 2015. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd, and Elisabeth Norcliffe. in press. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976a. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, pp. 112-171. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976b. Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Basso, K. and H. A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. pp. 11-56. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

  • Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Karin Aijmer. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Sun, Jackson T. S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63:4, 945-1001.Google Scholar

  • Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the Concept of ‘Conjunct’/‘Disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Huber, B., M. Volkart, and P. Widmer (eds.) Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. pp. 281-308, Halle: IITBS.Google Scholar

  • Walker, Neil A. 2013. A Grammar of Southern Pomo: An Indigenous Language of Southern California. PhD dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara.Google Scholar

  • Widmer, Manuel. 2015. The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking: evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Fleischer, Jürg, Elisabeth Reiken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective. pp. 53-73. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51-97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-09-12

Accepted: 2016-12-07

Published Online: 2017-03-01

Published in Print: 2017-01-26


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 18–30, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0002.

Export Citation

© 2017. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in