Home Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: An introduction
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: An introduction

  • Henrik Bergqvist EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 17, 2015

Abstract

This paper discusses forms of epistemic marking that instantiate multiple perspective constructions (see Evans 2005). Such forms express the speaker’s and the addressee’s simultaneous epistemic perspectives from the point of view of the speaker, crucially relying on the assumptions of the speaker with regard to the addressee’s knowledge. The analysis of forms considers established semanto-pragmatic concepts, such as semantic scope, mitigation strategies and communicative intention (as marked by sentence-type) in the exploration of forms. In addition, the notion of knowledge asymmetry is discussed alongside the concepts of epistemic status and stance as tools for a semantic analysis of investigated forms.

Abbreviations

1

first person

2

second person

3

third person

aa

addressee authority

adr

addressee

asym

asymmetry

col

collective

def

definite

dist

distal

dual

dualis

ego

egophoric

impf

imperfective

ind

independent

io

individual observation

irr

irrealis

loc

locative

mp

modal particle

midp

mid past

neg

negative

non.ego

non-egophoric

oa

observed action

partc

participle

perf

perfective

pl

plural

pst

past

rec

recent

sg

singular

sa

speaker authority

s/aa

speaker-addressee authority

spkr

speaker

sym

symmetry

t/e

tense-evidential

y/n

polar question

References

Abraham, Werner & ElisabethLeiss. (eds.) 2012. Modality and theory of mind elements across languages. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 243). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Andvik, Erik E. 1992. A pragmatic analysis of Norwegian modal particles. Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.Search in Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile. 1971 [1966]. Problems in general linguistics. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.Search in Google Scholar

Bergqvist, Henrik. 2009. The categorical expression of epistemic intersubjectivity in grammar: Towards a typology. Presentation at the Chronos 9 international conference on tense, aspect, and modality. September 2–4, 2009, University Paris-Diderot – Paris 7 & University of Chicago Center in Paris.Search in Google Scholar

Bergqvist, Henrik. 2011. Complex perspectives in Arwako languages: Comparing epistemic marking in Kogi and Ika. In Peter K., Austin, Oliver, Bond, David, Nathan & Lutz, Marten (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory 3, 49–57. London: SOAS.Search in Google Scholar

Bergqvist, Henrik. 2012. Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language36(1). 151178.10.1075/sl.36.1.05berSearch in Google Scholar

Bergqvist, Henrik. forthcoming. Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219036Search in Google Scholar

Burenhult, Niclas. 2003. Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: The case of the Jahai demonstrative ton. Pragmatics13(3). 363379.10.1075/prag.13.3.01burSearch in Google Scholar

Caudal, Patrick & LaurentRoussaire. 2005. Aspectual viewpoints, speech act functions and discourse structure. In Paula, Kempchinsky & Roumyana, Slabakova (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 265–290. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_12Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace & JohannaNichols. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Creissels, Denis. 2008. Person variation in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. Language Typology and Universals/STUF61(4). 309325.10.1524/stuf.2008.0027Search in Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara & EveSweetser. 2012. Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084727Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nicholas J. 2003. The definition of WHAT-d’you-call-it: Semantics and pragmatics of ‘recognitional deixis’. Journal of Pragmatics35(1). 101117.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00066-8Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nicholas J., PenelopeBrown & Jan P.de Ruiter. 2013. Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sentence final particles in comparative perspective. In Jan P., de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 193–221. Cambridge University Publishing Online.10.1017/CBO9781139045414.014Search in Google Scholar

Englebretson, Robert. 2007. Stancetaking in discourse. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas. 2005. View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective. Berkeley Linguistics Society31, 93–120.Search in Google Scholar

Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation. Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fleischman, Suzanne. 1991. Toward a theory of tense-aspect in narrative discourse. In J., Gvozdanovic & T., Janssen (eds.), in co-operation with Östen Dahl, The function of tense in texts, 75–97. Amsterdam: North Holland.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haddad, Youssef A. 2013. Pronouns and intersubjectivity in Lebanese Arabic gossip. Journal of Pragmatics49. 5777.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.006Search in Google Scholar

Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct forms in Newari. In Roland L., Trail (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics7, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Hardman, Martha James. 1986. Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In Chafe; Wallace & JohannaNichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 113–136. Norwood N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.Search in Google Scholar

Hardman, Martha James. 2000. Jaqaru. (Languages of the World/Materials 183). München: LINCOM EUROPA.Search in Google Scholar

HengeveldKees & MarizeMattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher. submitted. Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. http://home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp/publications/subm_hengeveld%26mattos_dall%27aglio_hattnher.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction45. 1–29.10.1080/08351813.2012.646684Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2013. Epistemics in conversation. In Jack, Sidnell & Tanya, Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 370–394. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch18Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & GeoffreyRaymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly68. 1538.10.1177/019027250506800103Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 205–254. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.33.08himSearch in Google Scholar

Hinds, John. 1973. Some remarks on soo su-. Papers in Japanese Linguistics2. 183010.1515/jjl-1973-0103Search in Google Scholar

HolmesJanet. 1984. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics8. 345365.10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in Language3(1). 3764.10.1075/sl.3.1.03hopSearch in Google Scholar

Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. On the semantics of modal particles. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. (Pragmatics and beyond), 141–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.12.06jacSearch in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1990 [1957]. Shifters and verbal categories. In Linda R., Waugh & Monique, Monville-Burston (eds.), On language, 386–392. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin.Search in Google Scholar

Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.48Search in Google Scholar

Kockelman, Paul. 2004. Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology14. 127–150.10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.127Search in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehart, DetlefStark & SusanneRequardt. 1990. Adverbien und Partikeln. Ein deutsch-englisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Kroeker, Menno. 2001. A descriptive grammar of Nambikuara. International Journal of American Linguistics67(1). 187.10.1086/466446Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William & DavidFanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Landaburu, Jon. 2000. La lengua ika. In González, María S. & María L., Rodríguez (eds.), Lenguas indígenas de Colombia: una visión descriptive, 733–748. Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Search in Google Scholar

LandaburuJon. 2007. La modalisation du savoir en langue Andoke (Amazonie Colombienne). In Zlatka, Guentchéva & Jon, Landaburu (eds.), L’énonciation médiatisée II – Le traitment épistémologique de l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes, 23–47. Paris: Éditions Peeters.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics17. 365399.10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lindström, Jan. 2008. Tur och ordning. Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts.Search in Google Scholar

Lowe, Ivan. 1999. Nambiquara. In Dixon, R.M.W. & Alexandra Y., Aikhenwald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 269–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Murray, Sarah. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. PhD dissertation. Rutgers: New Jersey.Search in Google Scholar

Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Discourse analysis: Evidentiality and epistemological stance: narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.87Search in Google Scholar

San Roque, Lila. 2008. An introduction to Duna grammar. PhD dissertation, Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar

San Roque, Lila, SimeonFloyd & ElisabethNorcliffe. 2015. Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar

Sillitoe, Paul. 2010. Trust in development: Some implications of knowing in indigenous knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute16. 1230.10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01594.xSearch in Google Scholar

Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & KarinAijmer. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198928Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya. 2010. An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics42(10). 27722781.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elisabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language57, 33–65.10.2307/414841Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elisabeth C. & Richard B.Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486500Search in Google Scholar

VanValin, RobertD. & Randy J.LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799Search in Google Scholar

Waltereit, Richard. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics33. 13911418.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00057-6Search in Google Scholar


Note

This special issue results from the project, “Complex perspective in epistemic assessment: exploring intersubjectivity in language”, funded by the Swedish Research Council (2012–2015, dnr. 2011–2274, Participants: Henrik Bergqvist, Stockholm University (PI), Lila San Roque, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, and Prof. Nicholas Evans, Australian National University in Canberra). Three of the papers in this collection were originally presented at a one-day workshop (Complex perspective in epistemic marking: a workshop on the origins, motivations and definitions of intersubjective perspectives in grammar), held at the SLE 2012 conference in Stockholm on the 30th of August 2012. Thanks to all the participants in the workshop, especially Sonja Gipper, David Hargreaves, Gwen Hyslop, Matti Miestamo, Zarina Molochieva, Erika Sandman, and Arie Verhargen. Many thanks also to Lila San Roque who greatly contributed in the process of writing the present paper. I would also like to thank the editorial staff at STUF for their support and for a very agreeable publication process. The usual disclaimers apply.


Published Online: 2015-6-17
Published in Print: 2015-7-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 15.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/stuf-2015-0007/html
Scroll to top button