Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 347–375

Chapter 11
The role of sentence type in Ika (Arwako) egophoric marking

| Stockholm University
The chapter focuses on the role of sentence type and subject person in accounting for egophoric marking in Ika, an Arwako-Chibchan language spoken in northern Colombia. Egophoric marking in Ika is only found in declarative clauses for which the speaker either assumes the role of epistemic authority, or where the speaker shares this role with the addressee. Interrogatives are treated as non-egophoric with all subject persons, as they do not encode the speaker’s assumptions about possible answers. This restriction, together with ones that pertain to predicate type and temporal frame of reference, point to epistemic/observational access as an important parameter in a system where public acts and personal attributes involving the speaker and/or the addressee are the only ones available for egophoric marking. Drawing on a model of dialogical stance-taking (Du Bois 2007), the notion of “complex epistemic perspective” (see Bergqvist 2016) is introduced to identify which perspective configurations allow for egophoric marking.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Issues of analysis
  • 3.Egophoric marking in Ika
  • 4.Gradient speaker expectations in interrogatives
  • 5.Sentence type and speaker stance
    • 5.1The stance triangle
    • 5.2Complex epistemic perspective
  • 6.Egophoric marking in Ika as speaker stance: A complex perspective
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.11ber
References (49)
References
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2009. The categorical expression of epistemic intersubjectivity in grammar: towards a typology. Presentation at The Chronos 9th International Conference on Tense, Aspect, and Modality, September 2–4, 2009, University Paris-Diderot – Paris 7 & University of Chicago Center in Paris.Google Scholar
. 2011. Complex perspectives in Arwako languages: Comparing epistemic marking in Kogi and Ika. In Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory 3, Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, David Nathan & Lutz Marten (eds), 49–57. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
. 2012. Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language 36(1): 151–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). IJAL, 82:1, 1–34.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Case marking and alignment. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 304 – 321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typologial Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 77–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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
Bolinger, Dwight. 1957. Interrogative Structures of American English. Tuscaloosa AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1978b. Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In Questions, Henry Hiz (ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Malinda, Nagell, Katherine & Tomasello, Michael. 1998. Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63: 4, Serial No. 255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, William, Milic, Louis T. & Greppin, John A.C. (eds). 1984. Interrogativity: A Colloquium on the Grammar, Typology, and Pragmatics of Questions in Seven Diverse Languages, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5th 1981 – May 3rd 1982 [Typological Studies in Language 4] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Russian. In Chisholm, Milic & Greppin (eds), 7–46.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 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 9th International Conference on Tense, Aspect, and Modality, September 2–4, 2009, University Paris-Diderot – Paris 7 & University of Chicago Center in Paris.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 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
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragamtics 33(3): 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse. Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J., Brown, Penelope & de Ruiter, Jan P. 2013. Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sentence final particles in comparative perspective. In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, Jan P. de Ruiter (ed.), 193–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2005. View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective. Proceedings of the Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society Meeting 31(1): 93–120.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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
Harris, Alice. 1984. Georgian. In Chisholm, Milic & Greppin (eds), 63–112.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68:15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2002. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Epistemics in Conversation. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. pp. 370–394, Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2011. A Grammar of Kurtöp. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2004. Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14: 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Theraputic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Landaburu, Jon. 1992. La langue ika ou Arhuaco: Morphosyntaxe du verbe. Amerindia 17: 1–30.Google Scholar
. 2000. La lengua ika. In Lenguas indígenas de Colombia: Una visión descriptiva. pp. 733–748, Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2011. Speech-act participants in modality. Presented at the International Conference on Discourse and Grammar, Universiteit Gent, 23–25 October 2008. <[URL]>
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Action types and language. Linguistics 17: 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan. 2008. Tur och ordning. Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah E. 2011. Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Pope, Emily, 1976. Questions and Answers in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rohde, Hannah. 2006. Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. San Diego Linguistic Papers 2: 134–168.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57], Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), 315–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2010. An overview of the question – response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2772–2781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Rossano, Federico. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1): 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicholas. 1996. Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains (tibétain central, ladakhi, dzongkha et amdo). In L'énonciation médiatisée, Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), 195–213. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Bergqvist, Henrik & Dominique Knuchel
2019. Explorations of Engagement: Introduction. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 650 ff. DOI logo
Bergqvist, Henrik
2018. Chapter 1. Evidentiality as stance. In Evidence for Evidentiality [Human Cognitive Processing, 61], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Bergqvist, Henrik
2023. Seeing and knowing. Functions of Language 30:2 ► pp. 183 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.