Cover not available
Part of
Egophoricity
Edited by Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe and Lila San Roque
[Typological Studies in Language 118] 2018
► pp. 473–494

Chapter 15
Self-ascription in conjunct-disjunct systems

| The University of Texas

Conjunct markers, in at least some languages, are analyzed here as grammatically specialized for the semantic function of self-ascription: such markers indicate that a participant in the described event ascribed to herself the property described in the sentence. The hypothesis proposed here is that grammatically enabled self-ascription is fundamental to such systems, and that mirativity, as well as various other observed factors such as speaker ignorance, volitionality, and irony, are secondary effects that follow from this self-ascription analysis.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conjunct-disjunct systems
  • 3.Previous accounts of conjunct-disjunct
  • 4.Conjunct morphology as indicator of self-ascription
  • 5.Event participant as self-ascriber
  • 6.Side-effects of self-ascription: Mirativity, intentionality, ignorance, and irony
  • 7.Conjunct-disjunct and the de se theory of person
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.15wec
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2008 Verb agreement and epistemic marking: A typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. 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
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2008 Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review 25: 203–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castaneda, Hector-Neri
1966 ‘He’: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio 8: 130–157.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2008 Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. STUF-Language Typology and Universals 61(4): 309–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan
2001 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 logo.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1992 The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 25: 39–62.Google Scholar
Delancey, Scott
1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1): 33–52. DOI logo.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. Presented at the LSA Workshop The grammar of knowldedge asymmetries: Conjunct/disjunct alignment from a cross-linguistic perspective, University of Colorado at Boulder, July 13–14.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon
2011 Conjunct/disjunct marking in Cha’palaa. Presented at the LSA Workshop The grammar of knowledge asymmetries: Conjunct/disjunct alignment from a cross-linguistic perspective, University of Colorado at Boulder, July 13–14.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1918 The thought: A logical enquiry, transl. by A.M. Quinton & Marcelle Quinton. Philosophical Logic, Oxford University Press (1967): 17–38.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
Hargreaves, David
2005 Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 5: 1–48.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973, The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1965, Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter
2005 Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Lee, Juwon
2013 The direct evidential -te in Korean: Its interaction with person and experiencer predicates. Qualifying paper, University of Texas Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lewis, David
1979 Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88: 513–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn
2009 A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne. [URL].
McCready, Eric
2007 Context shifting in questions and elsewhere. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 433–447. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth
2011 Conjunct/disjunct patterns in Guambiano. Presented at the LSA Workshop The grammar of knowldedge asymmetries: Conjunct/disjunct alignment from a cross-linguistic perspective, University of Colorado at Boulder, July 13–14.Google Scholar
Perry, John
1979 The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs 13: 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Tyler
2012 Evidentiality and the unprepared mind. [URL]
San Roque, Lila
2011 An introduction to conjunct/disjunct alignment in Duna and Kaluli (Trans New Guinea). Presented at the LSA Workshop The grammar of knowldedge asymmetries: Conjunct/disjunct alignment from a cross-linguistic perspective, University of Colorado at Boulder, July 13–14.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1983 Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S.
1997 The Parameter of Aspect [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 43]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1967 Linguistics in Philosophy, Ch. 4: Verbs and Times. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen
2010 What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and Theory of Mind. Language 86(2): 332–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Why ‘you’ and ‘I’ are special. Presented at the Structure and Evidence in Linguistics Workshop in honor of Ivan Sag, Stanford University, April 28–30.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C.
1986 Interactions of tense and evidentiality: A study of Sherpa and English. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [Advances in Discourse Processes 20], Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds), 188–2202. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Stegovec, Adrian
2020. Taking case out of the Person-Case Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38:1 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.