Evidentiality, Egophoricity, and Engagement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement Edited by Henrik Bergqvist Seppo Kittilä language Studies in Diversity Linguistics 30 science press Studies in Diversity Linguistics Editor: Martin Haspelmath In this series: 1. Handschuh, Corinna. A typology of 18. Paggio, Patrizia and Albert Gatt (eds.). The markedS languages. languages of Malta. 2. Rießler, Michael. Adjective attribution. 19. Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena WitzlackMakarevich 3. Klamer, Marian (ed.). The AlorPantar (eds.). Diachrony of differential argument languages: History and typology. marking. 4. Berghäll, Liisa. A grammar of Mauwake 20. Hölzl, Andreas. A typology of questions in (Papua New Guinea). Northeast Asia and beyond: An ecological 5. Wilbur, Joshua. A grammar of Pite Saami. perspective. 6. Dahl, Östen. Grammaticalization in the 21. Riesberg, Sonja, Asako Shiohara & Atsuko North: Noun phrase morphosyntax in Utsumi (eds.). Perspectives on information Scandinavian vernaculars. structure in Austronesian languages. 7. Schackow, Diana. A grammar of Yakkha. 22. Döhler, Christian. A grammar of Komnzo. 8. Liljegren, Henrik. A grammar of Palula. 23. Yakpo, Kofi. A Grammar of Pichi. 9. Shimelman, Aviva. A grammar of Yauyos Quechua. 24. Guérin Valérie (ed.). Bridging constructions. 10. Rudin, Catherine & Bryan James Gordon 25. AguilarGuevara, Ana, Julia Pozas Loyo & (eds.). Advances in the study of Siouan Violeta VázquezRojas Maldonado *eds.). languages and linguistics. Definiteness across languages. 11. Kluge, Angela. A grammar of Papuan Malay. 26. Di Garbo, Francesca, Bruno Olsson & 12. Kieviet, Paulus. A grammar of Rapa Nui. Bernhard Wälchli (eds.). Grammatical 13. Michaud, Alexis. Tone in Yongning Na: gender and linguistic complexity: Volume I: Lexical tones and morphotonology. General issues and specific studies. 14. Enfield, N. J. (ed.). Dependencies in 27. Di Garbo, Francesca, Bruno Olsson & language: On the causal ontology of Bernhard Wälchli (eds.). Grammatical linguistic systems. gender and linguistic complexity: Volume II: 15. Gutman, Ariel. Attributive constructions in Worldwide comparative studies. NorthEastern NeoAramaic. 28. Unterladstetter, Volker. Multiverb 16. Bisang, Walter & Andrej Malchukov (eds.). constructions in Eastern Indonesia. Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios. 29. Edwards, Owen. Metathesis and unmetathesis in Amarasi. 17. Stenzel, Kristine & Bruna Franchetto (eds.). On this and other worlds: Voices from 30. Bergqvist, Henrik & Seppo Kittilä. Amazonia. Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement. ISSN: 23635568 Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement Edited by Henrik Bergqvist Seppo Kittilä language science press Bergqvist, Henrik & Seppo Kittilä (eds.). 2020. Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 30). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/261 © 2020, the authors Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Indexed in EBSCO ISBN: 978-3-96110-269-3 (Digital) 978-3-96110-270-9 (Hardcover) ISSN: 2363-5568 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3968344 Source code available from www.github.com/langsci/261 Collaborative reading: paperhive.org/documents/remote?type=langsci&id=261 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Carla Bombi, Elena Moser, Sebastian Nordhoff Proofreading: Anca Gâţă, Andreas Hölzl, Annie Zaenen, Benjamin Brosig, Eva Schultze-Berndt, Ezekiel Bolaji, Gerald Delahunty, Jeroen van de Weijer, Lachlan Mackenzie, Sean Stalley, Tom Bossuyt, Yvonne Treis Fonts: Libertinus, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono Typesetting software:Ǝ X LATEX Language Science Press xHain Grünberger Str. 16 10243 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Contents 1 Epistemic perspectives: Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement Henrik Bergqvist & Seppo Kittilä 1 2 Epistemic primacy, Common Ground management, and epistemic perspective Karolina Grzech 23 3 Egophoricity, engagement, and the centring of subjectivity Alan Rumsey 61 4 An egophoric analysis of Dhivehi verbal morphology Jonathon Lum 95 5 Emerging epistemic marking in Indo-Aryan Palula Henrik Liljegren 141 6 On the existence of egophoricity across clause types in Totoró Namtrik Geny Gonzales Castaño 165 7 Interpersonal alignments and epistemic marking in Kalapalo (Southern Cariban, Brazil) Ellen B. Basso 197 8 Epistemic uses of the pretérito pluscuamperfecto in La Paz Spanish Geraldine Quartararo 239 9 Same same but different: On the relationship between egophoricity and evidentiality Manuel Widmer 263 Index 289 Chapter 1 Epistemic perspectives: Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement Henrik Bergqvist Stockholm University Seppo Kittilä University of Helsinki 1 Introduction In the last decade, there has been a surge in output on various forms of epistemic marking in language, including (epistemic) modality, evidentiality, mirativity, egophoricity, and engagement.1 Some of these terms are better known than oth- ers.2 To begin with, epistemic modality has a long research tradition stemming 1Edited volumes that deserve mention are: Aikhenvald & Dixon (2003; 2014) on evidentiality, modality, and expressions of knowing in grammar more broadly; Gawne & Hill (2017) on evi- dentiality in Tibetan languages and Floyd et al. (2018) on egophoricity. The list of journal articles on epistemic marking in grammar is (very) long, but we may note Evans et al. (2017a, 2017b) on engagement, Bergqvist & Knuchel (2017) on egophoricity, and San Roque et al. (2017) on evidentials and interrogativity. 2By using terms like “evidentiality” and “egophoricity”, we refer to meaning domains that signal how knowledge about events can be qualified in different ways. Usually, such domain labels come with a definition that is found in the seminal literature dealing with a given domain (e.g. Palmer 2001, for modality), but this is not always the case. Definitional criteria for compara- ble systems and forms are often contested and in a relatively young field such as the present one, debates concerning what counts as defining (semantic) features of a certain domain, are especially fierce. In this volume, a term like “evidentiality” is regarded as constituting alin- guistic category in some languages, but consequently also refers to an epistemic domain that expresses different “modes of access”Plungian ( 2010) with respect to how knowledge about events may be acquired. Henrik Bergqvist & Seppo Kittilä. 2020. Epistemic perspectives: Evidentiality, ego- phoricity, and engagement. In Henrik Bergqvist & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement, 1–21. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/ zenodo.3975795 Henrik Bergqvist & Seppo Kittilä from philosophy and qualifies an utterance in terms of possibility and probabil- ity, ranging from speculation to high certainty. The first monograph-length treat- ment of epistemic modality from a cross-linguistic perspective is Palmer (1986; 2001). At about the same time, research on the related category, evidentiality, also began to gain momentum. Evidentiality signals the source of information that a speaker has for an utterance. It is often sub-divided into direct and indirect ev- identials where direct evidentials target the (direct) perception of the speaker, signaling sensory access (visual, auditory) to a discourse object. Indirect eviden- tials express other types of cognitive access, such as inference, assumption, and hearsay, and may be differentiated by how directly accessible a given type ofevi- dence is. For example, inference and assumption are both based on the speaker’s observation of a state-of-affairs that is not directly related to the event his/her claim is based on (e.g., we may infer that someone has left if that person’s coat is gone). Inference is usually based on direct sensory perception, while assump- tion is often based on our general knowledge of the world, thus differing intype of indirect access (see e.g. Willett 1988). Aikhenvald (2004) is the first typologi- cal treatment of evidentiality, but it is Chafe & Nichols’(1986) seminal volume that is commonly regarded as the first work to investigate evidentiality from a cross-linguistic perspective. Mirativity is regarded as separate from evidentiality by some (e.g. DeLancey 1997), but the ultimate definition of this category (and even its existence) is still under debate.3 Miratives signal new/non-assimilated knowledge and has often been said to convey the surprise of the speaker (DeLancey 1997; cf. Aikhenvald 2014). Surprise as a defining semantic component of mirativity has increasingly been rejected, however, whereas the signaling of new/non-assimilated information appears to be more widely accepted (but see Hill 2012 for arguments against the category of mirativity). In some languages (e.g. Turkish and Finnish), mirativity is found in specific uses of inferential evidential morphemes, while in other languages (such as Hare), there is a morpheme whose primary, or even only, function, is to signal mirativity (DeLancey 1997). Egophoricity signals the epistemic authority of a speaker or addressee (speech- act participant) subject to his/her involvement in a talked-about event (Bergqvist 2018a; Bergqvist & Kittilä 2017; cf. Hargreaves 2005). This dialogical property of the egophoric marker has produced a pattern where egophoric markers occur in statements with first person subjects and in questions with second person 3See e.g. the debate in Linguistic Typology,