Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:4 (2017) ► pp.843–871

Marking the unexpected

Evidence from Navajo to support a metadiscourse domain

 | University of California, Santa Barbara
Typological discussions of mirativity often consider the relationship between mirativity and evidentiality (DeLancey 1997, 2001; Aikhenvald 2004). However, in interaction speakers mobilize pragmatic extensions of miratives in ways that defy specific categorization. This study analyzes the function and distribution of the Navajo enclitic lá in a Navajo Conversational Corpus (Mithun ed 2015 NSF-DEL project 0853598). The enclitic most frequently functions as an interrogative in information questions (Young & Morgan 1987), but it also encodes mirative senses including surprise, counter-expectation, discovery, and reported speech. Though the two seem synchronically unrelated, an examination of the pragmatic functions, as well as consideration of comparative Athabaskan evidence, links the polysemous enclitics as metadiscourse markers signaling contrastive focus on the unexpectedness of a proposition. These data support the interactional relevance of the semantic domain of expectation, subsuming contrastive focus and surprise (Behrens 2012).
Keywords: discourse, semantics and pragmatics, Navajo, Athabaskan, mirativity, corpora
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Mirativity in context
    • 2.1Mirativity
    • 2.2Evidentials & epistemic modality
    • 2.3Mirativity, focus & metadiscourse
  • 3.Diné bizaad
  • 4.Methods
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Interrogative constructions
    • 5.2Mirative constructions
    • 5.3Reported speech constructions
    • 5.4Contrastive focus constructions
    • 5.5Lexicalizations
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Comparative Athabaskan evidence
    • 6.2A broader characterization of lá
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16048.pal
References (60)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 161. 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barss, Andrew, Ken Hale, Ellavina Tsosie Perkins & Margaret Speas. 1992. In C. T. James Huang & Robert May (eds.), Logical structure and linguistic structure, 25–47. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Leila. 2012. Evidentiality, modality, focus and other puzzles. In Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), Practical theories and empirical practice, 185–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Crushina. 2014. Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and the evaluative dimension. Draft.Google Scholar
Bruil, Martine. 2014. Clause-typing and evidentiality in Ecuadorian Siona. Leiden: Leiden University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 159–181. Lund: Lund University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistics aspects of narrative production. Advances in Discourse Processes, vol. 31. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 349–388. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, James. 1987. Reported speech in Navajo myth narratives. In J. Verschueren (ed.), Linguistic action: Some empirical-conceptual studies, 69–84. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2000. Evidentials: semantics and history. In Lars Johanson and Bo Utas (eds.), Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, 1-12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2005. Modern syntactic typology. In Shibatani & Bynon (eds.), Approaches to language typology, 85–144. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related features and functional projections (Oxford Comparative Studies in Syntax). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1990. A note on evidentiality in Hare. International Journal of American Linguistics 561. 152–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11. 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 371–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 529–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolina & Susanna Cumming. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Santa Barbara papers in linguistics, Vol. 41. Santa Barbara: University of California, Department of Linguistics; In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Elgin, Patricia Anne Suzette. 1973. Some topics in Navajo syntax. San Diego: University of California, San Diego Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Field, Margaret. 2007. Increments in Navajo conversation. Pragmatics 17(4). 637–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2016. Phonological typology: The cross-linguistic study of sound systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2008. Evidentiality in Athabaskan. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics 161. 67–81.Google Scholar
. 2012. Evidentiality and mirativity. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Holton, Gary. 2005. Pitch, tone and intonation in Tanacross. In Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 249–276. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holton, Gary & Olga Lovick. 2008. Evidentiality in Dena’ina Athabaskan. Anthropological Linguistics 50(3–4). 292–323.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3(1). 91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leer, Jeff. 2005. How stress shapes the stem-suffix complex in Athabaskan. In Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 278–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, Joyce. 2000. How to use Young and Morgan’s “The Navajo Language.” In K. M. Crosswhite & J. S. Magnuson (eds.), University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences 1(2), 195–214.Google Scholar
. 2002. The prosody of interrogative and focus constructions in Navajo. In A. Carnie, M. Willie & H. Harley (eds.), Formal approaches to function in grammer, 191–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1986. Evidential diachrony in northern Iroquoian. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 89–112. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 2013. What can revitalization work teach us about documentation? In Mihas, Elena, Bernard Perley, Gabriel Rei-Doval & Kathleen Wheatley (eds), Responses to language endangerment. In honor of Mickey Noonan. New directions in language documentation and language revitalization, 21–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2015. Navajo conversational corpus, compiled with support from National Science Foundation DEL grant BCS-0853598.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah E. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Myhill, John & Janet Zhiqun Xing. 1996. Towards an operation definition of discourse contrast. Studies in Language 20(2). 303–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis & Lev Michael (eds.). 2014. Evidentiality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olbertz, Hella. 2009. Mirativity and exclamatives in functional discourse grammar: Evidence from Spanish. In Evelien Keizer & Gerry Wanders (eds.), The London Papers I, Special Issue of Web Papers in Functional Grammar 821, 66–82.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Problematizing Mirativity. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 312–342.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2017. Rethinking mirativity: The expression and implication of surprise.
. 2010. Examining the mirative and nonliteral uses of evidentials. In Tyler Peterson & Uli Sauerland (eds.), Evidence from evidentials. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 281, 129–159.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reichard, Gladys A. 1951. Navaho grammar. New York: Augustin.Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem Joseph. 2003. Evidentiality in western Apache (Athabaskan). In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies of evidentiality, 79–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren D. 1986. Some remarks on direct and indirect speech in Slave (Northern Athapaskan). In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 47–76. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Simeon Floyd & Elisabeth Norcliffe. 2015. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Saxon, Leslie. 1998. Complement clauses in Dogrib. In Pamela Munro & Leanne Hinton (eds.), Studies in American Indian languages: Description and theory, 204–211. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schauber, E. 1975. Theoretical reponses to Navajo questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I & Ayhan A. Aksu. 1982. In Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential [Typological Studies in Language], 185–200. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Watters, John Robert. 1979. Focus in Aghem. In Larry Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure, 137–197. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.Google Scholar
Willie, Mary Ann. 1991. Navajo pronouns and obviation. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
. 1996. On the expression of modality in Navajo. In Eloise Jelinek (ed.), Athabaskan Language Studies: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Young, 331–347. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Witherspoon, Gary. 1977. Language and art in the Navajo universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, Robert W. & William Morgan. 1987. The Navajo language. A grammar and colloquial dictionary. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. The function and signification of certain Navaho particles. In Theodore B. Fernald & Paul R. Platero (eds.), The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a Native American language family, 288–319. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar