Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.792–835

Intersubjective evidentials in Yurakaré

Evidence from conversational data and a first step toward a comparative perspective

| University of Cologne
This paper argues that evidentials in Yurakaré (Bolivia, isolate) have an intersubjective dimension in that they do not only express the speaker’s information source, but also convey the speaker’s assumptions about the addressee’s perspective on the information. To describe these intersubjective evidentials, an analysis is proposed in terms of a relation between speaker and addressee and two propositions, the expressed proposition and the proposition which constitutes evidence for it. Evidence from conversational data is presented to support the intersubjective analysis of the Yurakaré evidentials. Comparing Yurakaré to two other languages, South Conchucos Quechua (Hintz 2007) and Southeastern Tepehuan (Willett 1991), it is suggested that there are at least two types of intersubjective evidentials. Evidentials of the first type have different forms contrasting in terms of intersubjectivity within evidential types (South Conchucos Quechua, Southeastern Tepehuan), while those of the second type have specific intersubjective components without such a contrast (Yurakaré).
Keywords: intersubjectivity, Yurakaré, evidentiality
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.05gip
References (37)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Janet. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 50(3). 255–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2012. Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language 36(1). 154–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Epistemic perspective in grammar: Theoretical and practical issues. Presentation at the Endangered Languages Week 2013 at SOAS, London, 23 May 2013, [URL] (20 March 2014).
Curnow, Timothy J. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3). 611–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2005. View with a view: towards a typology of multiple perspective. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(1). 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Gijn, Rik van. 2006. A grammar of Yurakaré. Nijmegen: Radboud University dissertation.Google Scholar
Gijn, Rik van, Vincent Hirtzel & Sonja Gipper. 2011. The Yurakaré Archive. Online language documentation, DoBeS Archive, MPI Nijmegen. [URL] (1 April 2014).
Gipper, Sonja. 2011. Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: An interactional account. Nijmegen: Radboud University dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2014. From inferential to mirative: An interaction-based account of an emerging semantic extension. In Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change, 83–116. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers, finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics 71. 95–106.Google Scholar
Hardman, Martha J. 1986. Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 113–136. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Hintz, Daniel J. 2006. La evidencialidad y la co-construcción del conocimiento en el quechua del sur de Conchucos. Paper presented at the 52nd International Congress of Americanists, Seville, Spain, July 2006.
Hintz, Diane. 2007. Past tense forms and their functions in South Conchucos Quechua: Time, evidentiality, discourse structure, and affect. Santa Barbara: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Hirtzel, Vincent. 2010. Le maître à deux têtes: Enquête sur le rapport à soi d’une population d’Amazonie bolivienne, les Yuracaré. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales dissertation.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1990 [1957]. Shifters and verbal categories. In Linda R. Waugh & Monique Monville-Burston (eds.), On Language, 386–392. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2004. Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14(2). 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Caroline Fery & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientia: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Landaburu, Jon. 2007. La modalisation du savoir en langue andoke (Amazonie Colombienne). In Zlatka Guentchéva & Jon Landaburu (eds.), L’énonciation médiatisée II. Le traitement épistémologique de l’ínformation: Illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes, 23–47. Louvain & Paris: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. 1997. The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30(2). 93–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Denny. 2007. Endangered Languages of Lowland Tropical South America. In Mathias Brenzinger (ed.), Language diversity endangered, 29–58. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Robyn Loughnane. 2012. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1). 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 71–93. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schenner, Mathias. 2010. Evidentials in complex sentences: Foundational issues and data from Turkish and German. In Tyler Peterson & Uli Sauerland (eds.), Evidence from evidentials, 183–220. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics, 315–344. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stiver, Tanya. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2). 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Federico Rossano. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1). 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, Pilar M. 2003. Evidentiality in Shipibo-Konibo, with a comparative overview of the category in Panoan. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 33-61. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 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. Arlington, TX: SIL & The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Enfield, N. J.
2022. Enchrony. WIREs Cognitive Science 13:4 DOI logo
Sandman, Erika & Karolina Grzech
2022. Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Grzech, Karolina, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Henrik Bergqvist
2020. Knowing in interaction: An introduction. Folia Linguistica 54:2 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
De Decker, Filip
2018. The Augment Use of Εειπε and Ειπε in Early Epic Greek: An Evidential Marker?. Symbolae Osloenses 92:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
De Decker, Filip
2021. A Contrastive Study of the Co-occurrence of the Augmented, Unaugmented and Iterative forms in -σκ- in Iliad 24. Historical Linguistics 134:1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Gipper, Sonja
2018. Chapter 10. From similarity to evidentiality. In Evidence for Evidentiality [Human Cognitive Processing, 61], ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
Gipper, Sonja
2020. Beyond committing and presupposing in Yurakaré conversations: Investigating the interactional functions of epistemic markers through their sequential distributions. Folia Linguistica 54:2 ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Brugman, Claudia M. & Monica Macaulay
2015. Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology 19:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.