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

STUF - Language Typology and Universals

Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung

Editor-in-Chief: Stolz, Thomas

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.19

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.166
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.506

Online
ISSN
2196-7148
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 68, Issue 2

Issues

Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: An introduction

Henrik Bergqvist
Published Online: 2015-06-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2015-0007

Abstract

This paper discusses forms of epistemic marking that instantiate multiple perspective constructions (see Evans 2005). Such forms express the speaker’s and the addressee’s simultaneous epistemic perspectives from the point of view of the speaker, crucially relying on the assumptions of the speaker with regard to the addressee’s knowledge. The analysis of forms considers established semanto-pragmatic concepts, such as semantic scope, mitigation strategies and communicative intention (as marked by sentence-type) in the exploration of forms. In addition, the notion of knowledge asymmetry is discussed alongside the concepts of epistemic status and stance as tools for a semantic analysis of investigated forms.

Keywords: epistemic marking; intersubjectivity; knowledge asymmetry; multiple perspective; typology

References

  • Abraham, Werner & Elisabeth Leiss. (eds.) 2012. Modality and theory of mind elements across languages. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 243). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Andvik, Erik E. 1992. A pragmatic analysis of Norwegian modal particles. Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar

  • Benveniste, Émile. 1971 [1966]. Problems in general linguistics. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.Google Scholar

  • Bergqvist, Henrik. 2009. The categorical expression of epistemic intersubjectivity in grammar: Towards a typology. Presentation at the Chronos 9 international conference on tense, aspect, and modality. September 2–4, 2009, University Paris-Diderot – Paris 7 & University of Chicago Center in Paris.Google Scholar

  • Bergqvist, Henrik. 2011. Complex perspectives in Arwako languages: Comparing epistemic marking in Kogi and Ika. In Peter K., Austin, Oliver, Bond, David, Nathan & Lutz, Marten (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory 3, 49–57. London: SOAS.Google Scholar

  • Bergqvist, Henrik. 2012. Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language 36(1). 151–178.Google Scholar

  • Bergqvist, Henrik. forthcoming. Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Burenhult, Niclas. 2003. Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: The case of the Jahai demonstrative ton. Pragmatics 13(3). 363–379.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Caudal, Patrick & Laurent Roussaire. 2005. Aspectual viewpoints, speech act functions and discourse structure. In Paula, Kempchinsky & Roumyana, Slabakova (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 265–290. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser. 2012. Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Enfield, Nicholas J. 2003. The definition of WHAT-d’you-call-it: Semantics and pragmatics of ‘recognitional deixis’. Journal of Pragmatics 35(1). 101–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Enfield, Nicholas J., Penelope Brown & Jan P. de Ruiter. 2013. Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sentence final particles in comparative perspective. In Jan P., de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 193–221. Cambridge University Publishing Online.Google Scholar

  • Englebretson, Robert. 2007. Stancetaking in discourse. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas. 2005. View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective. Berkeley Linguistics Society 31, 93–120.Google Scholar

  • Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar

  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Fleischman, Suzanne. 1991. Toward a theory of tense-aspect in narrative discourse. In J., Gvozdanovic & T., Janssen (eds.), in co-operation with Östen Dahl, The function of tense in texts, 75–97. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

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

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

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

  • Hardman, Martha James. 1986. Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In Chafe; Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 113–136. Norwood N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.Google Scholar

  • Hardman, Martha James. 2000. Jaqaru. (Languages of the World/Materials 183). München: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar

  • Hengeveld Kees & Marize Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher. submitted. Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. http://home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp/publications/subm_hengeveld%26mattos_dall%27aglio_hattnher.pdf

  • Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45. 1–29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2013. Epistemics in conversation. In Jack, Sidnell & Tanya, Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 370–394. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68. 15–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 205–254. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hinds, John. 1973. Some remarks on soo su-. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 2. 18–30Google Scholar

  • Holmes Janet. 1984. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8. 345–365.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in Language 3(1). 37–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. On the semantics of modal particles. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. (Pragmatics and beyond), 141–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

  • Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

  • König, Ekkehart, Detlef Stark & Susanne Requardt. 1990. Adverbien und Partikeln. Ein deutsch-englisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Kroeker, Menno. 2001. A descriptive grammar of Nambikuara. International Journal of American Linguistics 67(1). 1–87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Landaburu, Jon. 2000. La lengua ika. In González, María S. & María L., Rodríguez (eds.), Lenguas indígenas de Colombia: una visión descriptive, 733–748. Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar

  • Landaburu Jon. 2007. La modalisation du savoir en langue Andoke (Amazonie Colombienne). In Zlatka, Guentchéva & Jon, Landaburu (eds.), L’énonciation médiatisée II – Le traitment épistémologique de l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes, 23–47. Paris: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17. 365–399.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lindström, Jan. 2008. Tur och ordning. Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar

  • Lowe, Ivan. 1999. Nambiquara. In Dixon, R.M.W. & Alexandra Y., Aikhenwald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 269–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Murray, Sarah. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. PhD dissertation. Rutgers: New Jersey.Google Scholar

  • Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Discourse analysis: Evidentiality and epistemological stance: narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

  • San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe. 2015. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003.

  • Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sillitoe, Paul. 2010. Trust in development: Some implications of knowing in indigenous knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16. 12–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Stivers, Tanya. 2010. An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). 2772–2781.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Traugott, Elisabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57, 33–65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Traugott, Elisabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Waltereit, Richard. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1391–1418.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-06-17

Published in Print: 2015-07-01


Citation Information: STUF - Language Typology and Universals, Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages 123–141, ISSN (Online) 2196-7148, ISSN (Print) 1867-8319, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2015-0007.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in