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

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