Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 269–304

Chapter 9
Egophoricity and argument structure in Cha’palaa

| Universidad San Francisco de Quito | Max Planck Institute for Psycolinguistics
The Cha’palaa language of Ecuador (Barbacoan) features verbal morphology for marking knowledge-based categories that, in usage, show a variant of the cross-linguistically recurrent pattern of ‘egophoric distribution': specific forms associate with speakers in contrast to others in statements and with addressees in contrast to others in questions. These are not person markers, but rather are used by speakers to portray their involvement in states of affairs as active, agentive participants (ego) versus other types of involvement (non-ego). They interact with person and argument structure, but through pragmatic ‘person sensitivities’ rather than through grammatical agreement. Not only does this pattern appear in verbal morphology, it also can be observed in alternations of predicate construction types and case alignment, helping to show how egophoric marking is a pervasive element of Cha'palaa's linguistic system. This chapter gives a first account of egophoricity in Cha’palaa, beginning with a discussion of person sensitivity, egophoric distribution, and issues of flexibility of marking with respect to degree of volition or control. It then focuses on a set of intransitive experiencer (or ‘endopathic') predicates that refer to internal states which mark egophoric values for the undergoer role, not the actor role, showing ‘quirky’ accusative marking instead of nominative case. It concludes with a summary of how egophoricity in Cha'palaa interacts with issues of argument structure in comparison to a language with person agreement, here represented by examples from Cha’palaa’s neighbor Ecuadorian Highland Quechua.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Cha’palaa language
    • 2.1Basic clause types
    • 2.2The Cha’palaa finite clause in natural speech
  • 3.Person sensitivity and egophoric distribution
    • 3.1Person sensitivity
    • 3.2Egophoric distribution as a type of person sensitivity
  • 4.Basic egophoric morphology in Cha’palaa
    • 4.1Basic egophoric distributional patterns
    • 4.2Egophoricity in reported speech
    • 4.3Egophoric marking and plurality
  • 5.Issues of (in)flexibility in egophoric marking
    • 5.1Non-volitional actions
    • 5.2Egophoricity and dubitativity
    • 5.3Egophoricity in speaker questions
    • 5.4Egophoricity and evidentiality
  • 6.Egophoricity in experiencer constructions
    • 6.1Emotion constructions
    • 6.2Desiderative constructions
    • 6.3Volitional vs. non-volitional predicates
  • 7.Conclusion
    • 7.1Argument structure with egophoricity versus person agreement
    • 7.2A synthesis of Cha’palaa’s egophoric system
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.09flo
References (60)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 339–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, Robert M.W. & Onishi, Masayuki (eds). 2001. Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berendt, Erich A. & Tanita, Keiko. 2011. The ‘heart’ of things: A conceptual metaphoric analysis of heart and related body parts in Thai, Japanese and English. Intercultural Communication Studies 20(1): 65–78.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. Introduction: Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2): 1–11.Google Scholar
. 2008. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 1–14. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (Eds.), 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Criessels, Denis. 2008. Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61(4): 309–325.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 1997. A Grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An Indigenous Language of South-western Colombia. PhD dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
. 2000. Why “first/non-first person”is not grammaticalized mirativity. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Keith Allan & John Henderson (eds). <[URL]>
. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3): 611–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25: 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002 Complex Predicates in Tsafiki. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon at Eugene.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1996. Grammaticizing the knower: Towards a partial typology of person effects on predicates. Plenary, Third Australian Linguistics Institute, ANU.Google Scholar
. 2007. View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective. Proceedings of the Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society Meeting 31(1): 93–120.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cusco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon & Bruil, Martine. 2011 Interactional functions as part of the grammar: The suffix –ba in Cha’palaa. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Language Description and Theory, Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds), 91–100. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon. 2014a. Four types of reduplication in the Cha'palaa language of Ecuador. In Reduplication in South American Indian Languages, Hein van der Voort & Gale Goodwin Gómez (eds), 77–113. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. The ‘deceased-referent’ marker in Nheengatú, a first look at a lesser-known type of social status marking. Paper presented at Amazónicas V, Belém, Brazil, May 26–30.
Garrett, Edward John. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward & Bateman, Leah. 2007. Symbiosis between documentary linguistics and linguistic pragmatics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond & David Nathan (eds). London: SOAS.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 4: 1–48.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 7 [Pacific Linguistics Series A, 53], Ronald L. Trail (ed.), 95–106. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1):119–132 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012a. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45:1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Epistemics in Conversation. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. 2001. Non-canonically marked A/S in Imbabura Quichua. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds), 149–176.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan. 2012. ‘Mirativity’ does not exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 389–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1994. The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 67–100 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Territory of information in English and Japanese and psychological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 235–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Territory of Information [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 48]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2003. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3(1): 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William & Fanshel, David. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2011. Speech-act participants in modality. Paper presented at the International Conference on Discourse and Grammar, Universiteit Gent, 23–25 October 2008. <[URL]>
Loughnane, Robin. 2009. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Niemeier, Susanne. 2000. Straight from the heart – metonymic and metaphorical explorations. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 195–213 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Adrej. 2010. “Quirky case”: Rare phenomena in case-marking and their implications for a theory of typological distributions. In Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory, Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (eds).139–169. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2013. Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo: Historical origins and functional motivation. In Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation. In Honor of Scott Delancey [Typological Studies in Language 103], Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joanna Jansen (eds), 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila. 2008. An Introduction to Duna Grammar. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Floyd, Simeon & Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua 186–187: 120–143.. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Slater, Keith. 2003. A Grammar of Mangghuer. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. & Aksu, Ayhan A. 1982. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of Turkish evidential. In Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between Semantics & Pragmatics [Typological Studies in Language 1], 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas. 1996. Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes Tibétains. In L’énonciation médiatisée, Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 195–213. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas, & Sangda Dorje. (2003). Manual of standard Tibetan: language and civilization: introduction to standad Tibetan (spoken and written) followed by an appendix on classical literary Tibetan. Ithaca, N.Y: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & Peter Schwieger (eds), 281–308. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas & LaPolla, Randy J. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2): 240–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66(2):221–260 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Semantic macroroles in Role and Reference Grammar. In Semantische Rollen, Rolf Kailuweit & Martin Hummel (eds), 62–82. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, Ning. 1995. Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10(2): 59–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Jacques, Guillaume
2022. Egophoric marking and person indexation in Japhug. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo
Sandman, Erika & Karolina Grzech
2022. Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Floyd, Simeon
2019. Body-directed gesture and expressions of social difference in Chachi and Afro-Ecuadorian discourse. Gesture 18:2-3 ► pp. 281 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.