Cover not available
Article published In:
Notes from the field on perspective-indexing constructions: Irregular shifts and perspective persistence
Edited by Stef Spronck, An Van linden, Caroline Gentens and María Sol Sansiñena
[Functions of Language 27:1] 2020
► pp. 7–28

Constructional effects of indirect evidential marking in Harakmbut

| University of Liège | KU Leuven
This article focuses on two types of constructional effects of indirect evidential marking in Harakmbut (isolate, Peru). Both types originate in a clash of interpretation: the use of indirect evidential marking indicates a shift of perspective away from the speaker (as if they did not witness the event, thus disclaiming epistemic authority), while the events referred to are in principle directly accessible to them. As the signalled shift is not fully realized in interpretation, the effects will be characterized as showing perspective persistence. The first type involves constructions with a first person agent, and indirect evidential marking is found to produce the interpretation that the speaker performed the action referred to unintentionally, finding out about the outcome of this action only later. Other types of non-volitional events – without pragmatic inference on the part of the speaker – are found not to carry indirect evidential marking; they use different linguistic means to signal non-volitionality. The second type involves constructions with impersonal predicates referring to the cycle of the sun, and the use of indirect evidential marking yields emphasis on the completion of the event referred to. It is proposed that both types of effects can be explained in terms of endpoint emphasis (cf. DeLancey 1985).
Article outline
  • 1.The Harakmbut language and collection of data
  • 2.The Harakmbut finite verb form and evidentiality
  • 3.Indirect evidential marking with first person agents: Involuntary action
  • 4.Indirect evidential marking with impersonal predicates: Completion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 15 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20004.lin
References (45)
References
Adelaar, Willem F. H. 2000. Propuesta de un nuevo vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos indígenas de la Amazonía occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina. In Luis Miranda Esquerre (ed.), Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica, L. Miranda Esquerre (ed.), vol. 21, 219–236. Lima: U. Ricardo Palma.Google Scholar
2007. Ensayo de clasificación del katawixí dentro del conjunto harakmbut-katukina. In Andres Romero-Figueroa, Ana Fernández Garay, Ángel Corbera Mori (eds.), Lenguas indígenas de América del Sur, 159–169. Caracas: Universidad Católica Andrés Bello.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. A grammar of Tariana. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Barnes, Janet. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 50(3). 255–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bashir, Elena. 1988. Inferentiality in Kalasha and Khowar. Chicago Linguistic Society 24(1). 47–59.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crevels, Mily & Hein van der Voort. 2008. The Guaporé-Mamoré region as a linguistic area. In Pieter Muysken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics, 151–179. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curnow, Timothy J. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27(1). 39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Berkeley Linguistic Society 11. 65–72.Google Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2013. Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Epps, Patience & Lev Michael (eds). Forthcoming. Amazonian Languages, An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2011. Involuntary agent constructions are not directly linked to reduced transitivity. Studies in Language 35(2). 311–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate Agents: A cross-linguistic study. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 2013. Completives as markers of non-volitionality. Folia Linguistica 47(1). 35–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentens, Caroline, María Sol Sansiñena, Stef Spronck & An Van linden. 2019. Introduction. Pragmatics 29(2). 155–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Andrew. 1996. The Arakmbut: Mythology, spirituality and history. Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
Haller, Felix. 2000. Verbal categories of Shigatse Tibetan and Themchen Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(3). 175–191.Google Scholar
Hart, Raymond. 1963. Semantic components of shape in Amarakaeri Grammar. Anthropological Linguistics 5(9). 1–7.Google Scholar
Helberg Chávez, Heinrich Albert. 1984. Skizze einer Grammatik des Amarakaeri. Tübingen: Tübingen University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 1990. Análisis functional del verbo amarakaeri. In Rodolfo Cerrón Palomino & Gustavo Solís Fonseca (eds.), Temas de lingüística amerindia, 227–249. Lima: Concytec.Google Scholar
. 1996. Mbaisik: en la penumbra del atardecer. Literatura oral del Pueblo Harakmbut. Lima: Centro Amazónico de la Antropología y Aplicación Práctica.Google Scholar
Hewitt, B. George. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar [London Oriental and African Language Library 2]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Remarks on involuntary agent constructions. Word 56(3). 381–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa, James S. Boster & Melissa Bowerman. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 1091. 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska (eds.). 2011. Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matteson, Esther. 1972. Proto Arawakan. In Esther Matteson, Alva Wheeler, Frances L. Jackson, Nathan E. Waltz & Diana R. Christian (eds.), Comparative studies in Amerindian languages, 160–242. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQuown, Norman A. 1955. Indigenous languages of Latin America. American Anthropologist 571. 501–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Denny. 2007. Endangered languages of lowland tropical South America. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language diversity endangered, 29–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc. Forthcoming. Katukinan. In Patience Epps & Lev Michael (eds).
Ramirez, Henri. 1997. A fala Tukano dos Ye’pâ-Masa, vol. 1: Gramática. Manaus: Inspetoria Salesiana Missionária da Amazônia & Centro “Iauareté” de Documentação Etnográfica e Missionária.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe (eds.). 2018. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Alan Rumsey, Lauren Gawne, Stef Spronck, Darja Hoenigman, Alice Carroll, Julia Colleen Miller & Nicholas Evans. 2012. Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Language Documentation & Conservation 61. 135–174.Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef, An Van linden, Caroline Gentens & María Sol Sansiñena. This issue. Perspective persistence and irregular perspective shift: mismatches in form-function pairings.
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2001. From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tripp, Robert. 1976. Los verbos Amarakaeri. Datos etno-lingüísticos: Colección de los archivos del ILV 33. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
. 1995. Diccionario amarakaeri-castellano. Yarinacocha: Min. de Educación & SIL.Google Scholar
Van linden, An. Forthcoming. Harakmbut. In Patience Epps & Lev Michael (eds.).
. 2019. Nominalization in Harakmbut. In Roberto Zariquiey, Masayoshi Shibatani & David W. Fleck (eds.), Nominalization in Languages of the Americas, 455–490. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wise, Mary R. 1999. Small language families and isolates in Peru. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 307–340. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Zemp, Marius. This issue. Evidentials and their pivot in languages on and around the Tibetan plateau.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Van linden, An
2023. When the alienability contrast fails to surface in adnominal possession: bound nouns in Harakmbut. Linguistics 61:6 ► pp. 1533 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.