Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 405–436

Chapter 13
Egophoric patterns in Duna verbal morphology

| Radboud University | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
In the language Duna (Trans New Guinea), egophoric distributional patterns are a pervasive characteristic of verbal morphology, but do not comprise a single coherent system. Many morphemes, including evidential markers and future time inflections, show strong tendencies to co-occur with ‘informant’ subjects (the speaker in a declarative, the addressee in an interrogative), or alternatively with non-informant subjects. The person sensitivity of the Duna forms is observable in frequency, speaker judgments of sayability, and subject implicatures. Egophoric and non-egophoric distributional patterns are motivated by the individual semantics of the morphemes, their perspective-taking properties, and logical and/or conventionalised expectations of how people experience and talk about events. Distributional tendencies can also be flouted, providing a resource for speakers to convey attitudes towards their own knowledge and experiences, or the knowledge and experiences of others.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Encoding knowledge in interaction
    • 1.2Language background
    • 1.3Egophoricity in the Duna context
  • 2.Evidentials and subject person associations
  • 3.Talking about the future
    • 3.1Overview of non-directive future markers
    • 3.2Intentive
    • 3.3Prophetic
    • 3.4A note on the ‘promissive’ inflection
  • 4.The odd one out: An egophoric present tense inflection?
  • 5.Summary and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.13san
References (42)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language Sciences 30(4): 383–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthazar & Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, rev. 2nd edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.),169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthazar. 2001. Die Kategorie der Person in den Sprachen der Welt. Handout of talk given at the University of Zurich, 11 May.Google Scholar
Cochrane, Dennis & Cochrane, Nancy. 1966. Duna essentials for translation. Ms submitted to the Grammar Department, SIL, PNG Branch.Google Scholar
Cohen, Genna, Chuakaw, Carlene & Small, Josephine. 2010. Walking the language of dreamers: A survey of evidentiality in dreams. In Evidence from Evidentials, Tyler Peterson & Uli Sauerland (eds). University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 28: 45–73.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3): 611–627. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2003. Nonvolitionality expressed through evidentials. Studies in Language 27(1): 39–59. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–422. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticizing the knower in Tsafiki. Handout for a Paper presented at the Workshop on Conjunct/disjunct alignment in cross-linguistic perspective, Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute, University of Boulder, Colorado.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 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
. 2012. Nen assentives and the phenomenon of dialogic parallelisms. In Practical Theories and Empirical Practice: Facets of a Complex Interaction [Human Cognitive Processing 40], Andrea Schalley (ed.), 159–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 2000. The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 357–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward J. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2013. Lamjung Yolmo Copulas in Use: Evidentiality, Reported Speech and Questions. PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Giles, Glenda. No date. A guide to the pronunciation of Duna and Duna language lessons. Ms.
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
Haley, Nicole. 2002. Ipakana yakaiya – Mapping Landscapes, Mapping Lives: Contemporary Land Politics among the Duna. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1–48.Google Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap [Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics]. <[URL]>
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of Information [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 48]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting Imperatives. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Marshall. 1987. Viewpoint in Oksapmin. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 16: 54–70.Google Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn. 2005. Reported speech constructions in Golin. In Materials on Golin: Grammar, Texts and Dictionary, Nicholas Evans, Hywel Stoakes, Alan Lee & Jutta Besold (eds), 131–152. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2007. Expanding the typology of evidentiality: The participatory/factual in Oksapmin. Handout from a paper presented at the 7th Biennal Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (ALT7), Paris.
. 2009. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne. <[URL]>
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012. Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology 16: 233–263.Google Scholar
Post, Mark. 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 & Joana Jansen (eds), 105–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Papuan Pasts: Cultural, Linguistic and Biological Histories of Papuan-speaking Peoples, Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds), 15–65. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rule, William [compiler]. 1966. A grammatical description of the Duna (Yuna) language. Ms held at SIL PNG, Ukarumpa.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan, San Roque, Lila & Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2013. The acquisition of ergative marking in Kaluli, Ku Waru and Duna (Trans New Guinea). In The Acquisition of Ergativity [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 9], Edith L. Bavin & Sabine Stoll (eds), 133–182. 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 & Loughnane, Robyn. 2012a. Inheritance, contact and change in the New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia: Special Issue 2012 Part II, 397–427.Google Scholar
. 2012b. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16(1): 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Floyd, Simeon & Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua 186–187: 120–143. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slater, Keith W. 2003. A Grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic Language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. 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