Cover not available
Part of
Evidence for Evidentiality
Edited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 19–43

Chapter 1
Evidentiality as stance

Event types and speaker roles

| Stockholm University
This chapter argues for a view of evidentials as a type of shifter and outlines a theory of reference for evidentials that separates the configuration of the ground from the relational axis, and the alignment between ground and figure. The chapter also evaluates a proposal by Kockelman (2004) that draws on Jakobson’s notion of “event type” and Goffman’s “speaker roles” to suggest an existing analogy between “commitment events” for modals and “source events” for evidentials. The scope properties of ‘factual’ forms in both systems notably constitute a formal difference between (epistemic) modality and evidentiality that cannot be accounted for solely by the referential properties of evidentials.
Keywords: epistemic modality, figure, ground, alignment, Jakobson, modals, shifters
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A relational theory of indexical reference
    • 2.1Referential properties of evidentials
    • 2.2Referential alignment in evidentials
    • 2.3An illustration: epistemic marking in Ika
  • 3.Modality as stance: commitment events and the role of ‘principal’
    • 3.1Event-types and speaker-roles
    • 3.2Adding commitment: Paul Kockelman’s proposal
  • 4.Evidentiality as stance: source events and the role of ‘perceiver’
    • 4.1Evidential event-types and speaker-roles
    • 4.2Scope properties of evidentials and modals
    • 4.3Embedded source events
  • 5.Summary
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.02ber
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R., & Keenan, E. L. 1985. Deixis. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic fieldwork vol. 3 (259–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A., & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.) 2003. Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) 2013. The grammar of knowledge: a cross-linguistic typology [Explorations in Linguistic Typology 7]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bendix, E. H. 1992. The grammaticalization of responsibility and evidence: Interactional potential of evidential categories in Newari. In J. H. Hill & J. T. Irvine (Eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse (226–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H. 2012. Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language, 36(1), 154–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The role of sentence type in Ika (Arwako) egophoric marking. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe, & L. San Roque (Eds.), Egophoricity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, B., & Nichols J. 2007. Inflectional Morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: vol. 3 grammatical categories and the lexicon (169–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional cognitive study. [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 43]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D. 2008. Person variation in Akhvakh verb morphology: functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. STUF, 61(4), 309–325.Google Scholar
2009. Language documentation and verb inflection typology: the case of Northern Akhvakh (Nakh-Daghestanian). Handout at Chronos 9, October 2–4, Paris.
Curnow, T. J. 2002. Types of interaction between evidentials and first person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics, 44(2), 178–196.Google Scholar
2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language, 27(1), 39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1986. Self-Evidence and Ritual Speech. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Ed. by Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 313–336. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Eberhard, D. 2009. Mamaindê grammar: A northern Nambikwara language and its cultural context. 2 volumes. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Norcliffe, N., & San Roque, L. (Eds.) 2017. Egophoricity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, M. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. 1990. Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2009. Fieldwork on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1), 10–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Evidentiality in social interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 3(2), 169–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, A. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct forms in Newari. In Trail R. (Ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 7 (95–106). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, D. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics, 5, 1–48.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Dall’Aglio Hattnher, M. M. 2015. “Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics, 53(3), 479–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (205–254). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, W. H. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic encoding of epistemology (3–28). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1957. Shifters and verbal categories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Reprinted in L. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (Eds.), [1990] On language (386–392). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language; its nature, development, and origin, London: Geroge Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2004. Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14, 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Review of “Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22(2), E105–E118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, culture, and mind: Natural constructions and social kinds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landaburu, J. 1992. La langue ika ou Arhuaco: Morphosyntaxe du verbe. Amerindia, 17, 1–30.Google Scholar
2000. La lengua ika. In M. S. Gonzales de Peréz, & M. L. Rodrigues de Montes (Eds.), Lenguas indígenas de Colombia: Una visión descriptíva (733–748). Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Loughnane, R. 2010. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD thesis. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1999. The Languages of Native North America (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling, [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswalt R. L. 1986. The evidential system of Kashaya. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology (29–45). Norwood N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ramirez, H. 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
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Rule, W. M. 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, L. 2008. An introduction to Duna grammar. Canberra: The Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
San Roque, L., & Loughnane, R. 2012. Evidentiality in Highland New Guinea. Linguistic Typology 16, 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2006. Historical aspects of modality. In W. Frawley, (Ed.), The Expression of Modality (107–139). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Willett, T. L. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1): 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. A reference grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. SIL publications in Linguistics 100. Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Mélac, Eric
2024. The links between evidentiality, modality, and grammaticalization. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 513 ff. DOI logo
Kiesling, Scott F.
2022. Stance and Stancetaking. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 409 ff. DOI logo
Bergqvist, Henrik
2020. Swedish modal particles as markers of engagement: Evidence from distribution and frequency. Folia Linguistica 54:2 ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Bergqvist, Henrik
2023. Seeing and knowing. Functions of Language 30:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Bergqvist, Henrik & Dominique Knuchel
2019. Explorations of Engagement: Introduction. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 650 ff. DOI logo
San Roque, Lila
2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.