Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 437–471

Chapter 14
Learning how to know

Egophoricity and the grammar of Kaluli (Bosavi, Trans New Guinea), with special reference to child language

 | Radboud University
 | New York University
Languages with egophoric systems require their users to pay special attention to who knows what in the speech situation, providing formal marking of whether the speaker or addressee has personal knowledge of the event being discussed. Such systems have only recently come to be studied in cross-linguistic perspective. This chapter has two aims in regard to contributing to our understanding of egophoric marking. Firstly, it presents relevant data from a relatively under-described and endangered language, Kaluli (aka Bosavi), spoken in Papua New Guinea. Unusually, Kaluli tense inflections appear to show a mix of both egophoric and first vs non-first person-marking features, as well as other contrasts that are broadly relevant to a typology of egophoricity, such as special constructions for the expression of involuntary experience. Secondly, the chapter makes a preliminary foray into issues concerning egophoric marking and child language, drawing on a naturalistic corpus of child-caregiver interactions. Questions for future investigation raised by the Kaluli data concern, for example, the potentially challenging nature of mastering inflections that are sensitive to both person and speech act type, the possible role of question-answer pairs in children’s acquisition of egophoric morphology, and whether there are special features of epistemic access and authority that relate particularly to child-adult interactions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on the Kaluli language and data sources
  • 3.Verbal inflections and egophoric patterns
    • 3.1Present
      • 3.1.1Basic distribution
      • 3.1.2Examples from child-adult interactions: Present
    • 3.2Future
      • 3.2.1Basic distribution of the future inflections
      • 3.2.2Examples from child-adult interactions: Future
      • 3.2.3Note on ‘teasing’ present and future forms
    • 3.3Intentive and immediate future inflections
  • 4.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.14san
References (64)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A. & Slobin, Dan I. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 159–167. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward H. 1993. The grammaticalization of responsibility and evidence: Interactional manipulation of evidential categories in Newari. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, Jane H. Hill & Judith T. Irvine (eds), 226–247. Cambridge: Cambridge University 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
Burton, Sarah & Mitchell, Peter. 2003. Judging who knows best about yourself: Developmental change in citing the self across middle childhood. Child Development 74: 426–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Language documentation and verb inflection typology: The case of Northern Akhvakh (Nakh-Daghestanian). Presented at Chronos 9, Paris.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2002a. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3): 611–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. Types of interaction between evidentials and first-person subjects. Anthropological Linguistics 44: 178–196.Google Scholar
de Villiers, Jill & Garfield, Jay. 2009. Evidentiality and narrative. Journal of Consciousness Studies 16: 191–217.Google Scholar
de Villiers, Jill, Garfield, Jay, Gernet-Girard, Harper, Roeper, Tom & Speas, Margaret. 2009. Evidentials in Tibetan: Acquisition, semantics, and cognitive development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 125: 29–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2): 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1996. Grammaticizing the knower: Towards a partial typology of person effects on predicates. Plenary, Third Australian Linguistics Institute, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2003. Context, culture and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 13–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Nen assentives and the phenomenon of dialogic parallelism. In Practical Theories and Empirical Practice: A Linguistic Perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 40], Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), 159–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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
Gopnik, Alison & Graf, Peter. 1988. Knowing how you know: Young children’s ability to identify and remember the sources of their beliefs. Child Development 59: 1366–1371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gossner, Jan D. 1994. Aspects of Edolo Grammar. MA dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Grosh, Sylvia & Grosh, Andrew. 2004. Grammar essentials for the Kaluli language. Ms. <[URL]>
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
Hale, Austin & Shrestha, Kedar P. 2006. Newar (Nepal Bhasa). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1–48.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Barbara & Nordlinger, Rachel. 2014. Fieldwork and first language acquisition. In Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013, Lauren Gawne & Jill Vaughan (eds), 178–192. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google 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. <[URL]>
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.). 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 16th edn. Dallas TX: SIL International. <[URL]>
Loughnane, Robin. 2009. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne. <[URL]>
Matsui, Tomoko & Fitneva, Stanka A. 2009. How do we know what we know: Evidentiality in cognitive development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 125: 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, Silvina. 2004. The Acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic Development in Monolingual and Bilingual L1 Acquisition and Adult L2 Acquisition [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Leslie C. 2012. Language socialization and repetition. In The Handbook of Language Socialization, Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds), 209–226. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1980. Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device. Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–198. DOI logoGoogle 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), 107–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reesink, Ger P. 1987. Structures and Their Functions in Usan: A Papuan Language of Papua New Guinea [Studies in Language Companion Series 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John R. 2001. Impersonal constructions in Amele. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikenvald, Robert M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 201–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Elizabeth J., Butterfill, Stephen A. & Nurmsoo, Erika. 2011. Gaining knowledge via other minds: Children’s flexible trust in others as sources of information. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 29: 961–980. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Morris. 1979. Conceiving the Self. New York NY: Basic Books.Google 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
Rubino, Rejane B. & Pine, Julian M. 1998. Subject-verb agreement in Brazilian Portuguese: What low error rates hide. Journal of Child Language 25: 35–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rule, William M. 1964. Customs, alphabet and grammar of the Kaluli people of Bosavi, Papua. Ms.Google Scholar
1977. A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli, and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan. 2003. Language, desire, and the ontogenesis of intersubjectivity. Language & Communication 23: 169–187. DOI logoGoogle 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. The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology 16: 111–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. 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
San Roque, Lila, Floyd, Simeon & Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2017. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua 186–187: 120–143. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1985. The acquisition of Kaluli. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Dan I. Slobin (ed.), 525–593. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1986. Teasing and shaming in Kaluli children’s interactions. In Language Socialization across Cultures, Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds), 165-181. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996. Creating evidence: Making sense of the written word in Bosavi. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra Thompson (eds), 435–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Found in translating: Reflexive language across time and texts. In Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies, Miki Makihara & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds), 140–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Speaking only your own mind: Reflections on confession, gossip, and intentionality in Bosavi (PNG). Anthropological Quarterly 81(2): 431–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi B. & Feld, Steven. 1998. Bosavi-English-Tok Pisin Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 2004. From common ground to syntactic construction: Associated path in Warlpiri. In Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, Nicholas J. Enfield (ed.), 287–307. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanz, Christine. 1980. Studies in the Acquisition of Deictic Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Tournadre, Nicolas & LaPolla, Randy J. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37: 240–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, Shannon. 2015. Style and standardization: A case study of Tibetan family interaction in greater New York. Texas Linguistics Forum 58: 152–161.Google Scholar
Watters, David. 2006. The conjunct-disjunct distinction in Kaike. Nepalese Linguistics 22: 300–319.Google Scholar
Wellman, Henry M. & Liu, David. 2004. Scaling of Theory-of-Mind tasks. Child Development 75(2): 523–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Sandman, Erika & Karolina Grzech
2022. Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Ward, Shannon M.
2021. Narrative Elicitation as Ethnography: Methodological Insights From the Examination of Children's Perspective Marking in Amdo Tibetan. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Robbins, Joel
2020. Mental Opacity. In The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
San Roque, Lila
2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo
San Roque, Lila & Bambi B. Schieffelin
2019. Perception verbs in context. In Perception Metaphors [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 19], ► pp. 347 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 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.